North Korea...

[RBBailey]

Jus' sayin'

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/politics/koreas-u-s-/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"Recent announcements of American military deployments in response to belligerent statements by North Korea may have contributed to escalating tensions between the two countries,"

"We accused the North Koreans of amping things up, now we are worried we did the same thing,"

I had earlier said that it was the "way" we were doing this show of force. That I felt we were poking a dog with a stick. And that I felt we were doing the same thing they were doing.

 

[1920SF]

Jus' sayin'

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/politics/koreas-u-s-/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



I had earlier said that it was the "way" we were doing this show of force. That I felt we were poking a dog with a stick. And that I felt we were doing the same thing they were doing.

That does raise an excellent point; what if we hadn't done anything openly-I wonder if things would be where they are.

Of course the counterargument people would make is then we're being weak in the face of their rhetoric and the like.

On the balance it just seems like we're being clumsy with this one.

 

[mgreenspan]

That does raise an excellent point; what if we hadn't done anything openly-I wonder if things would be where they are.

Of course the counterargument people would make is then we're being weak in the face of their rhetoric and the like.

On the balance it just seems like we're being clumsy with this one.

Clumsy is an interesting thought.

Think about these points. Has the south wanted to roll on the north before? If so, why didn't they? Are we being over the top in an effort to prevent anything from happening? What would we gain by the north falling and what would we lose? What does China stand to gain by getting involved and what do they stand to lose?

 

[brian4d]

That does raise an excellent point; what if we hadn't done anything openly-I wonder if things would be where they are.

Of course the counterargument people would make is then we're being weak in the face of their rhetoric and the like.

On the balance it just seems like we're being clumsy with this one.

Questioning our past tactics to get this clown to lie down will not help now unfortunately. I personally think it was brilliant to fly two B-2's non-stop from WAFB to Soul. After all the propaganda the north has been fed about the west over the years what better way to show the North we're not fucking around than flying the 'bat wing' 50 miles from the DMZ? Just that sight alone would be a crushing blow to KJU and his make believe empire.

So, if it was a 'clumsy' move what was the 'right' move to make in this case? Easy to throw stones at a glass house.

 

[brian4d]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-2-2013/nuke-kid-on-the-block---north-korean-threats

 

[1920SF]

Questioning our past tactics to get this clown to lie down will not help now unfortunately. I personally think it was brilliant to fly two B-2's non-stop from WAFB to Soul. After all the propaganda the north has been fed about the west over the years what better way to show the North we're not fucking around than flying the 'bat wing' 50 miles from the DMZ? Just that sight alone would be a crushing blow to KJU and his make believe empire.

So, if it was a 'clumsy' move what was the 'right' move to make in this case? Easy to throw stones at a glass house.

I think flying 2 B-2's there (and announcing it) was absurd actually. Everyone knows we can do that, proving it just flexes muscle unnecessarily. Moreover few in the DPRK have media access to even hear that such a thing transpired (and those that do likely are already fully aware of the reach of strategic assets without the demonstration-afterall they've done the same thing against real targets against Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the past decade.

Clumsy is an interesting thought.

Think about these points. Has the south wanted to roll on the north before? If so, why didn't they? Are we being over the top in an effort to prevent anything from happening? What would we gain by the north falling and what would we lose? What does China stand to gain by getting involved and what do they stand to lose?

Has the South wanted to roll into the DPRK, or strike them (two different things). Currently they are quite close to unilateral action based off the events that preceded the current rise in tension already discussed. In terms of wanting to roll north and forcibly reunify I don't think that's been a realistic goal.

The main reason why (from a ROK perspective) is because Seoul is ~30mi from the DMZ and has a population of 10m people. Without eradicating the ability to strike their population center you run the risk of killing hundreds of thousands of S Koreans in an attempt to reunify the country.

How does that fare in our national security calculus is another discussion; what we gain is the demise of a fringe nuclear power who is developing ballistic missiles of concern (proliferation issues go a step further). What do we lose is relative to the above comment about the ROKs, the potential for losses of our own on the peninsula, in Japan, Guam, etc.

China's gain is difficult to measure, but if the DPRK fell everyone in the region is going to be dealing with the aftermath for some time because of the generation(s) of N. Koreans that will require assistance.

My point about clumsy is if you've got the capability to kick someone's ass then be sure your messaging is hitting the intended target audience in the right way, at the right time-I don't think we've done that exceptionally well in this case in the past 30 days.

Of course I also believe you shouldn't pick a fight you don't need to be in; and we don't need to be in a fight with the DPRK right now unless there is a compelling threat to vital national security interests of the US that I'm missing. Hawks abound, but how many of them are in actual danger of going in harm's way?

 

[brian4d]

I think flying 2 B-2's there (and announcing it) was absurd actually. Everyone knows we can do that, proving it just flexes muscle unnecessarily. Moreover few in the DPRK have media access to even hear that such a thing transpired (and those that do likely are already fully aware of the reach of strategic assets without the demonstration-afterall they've done the same thing against real targets against Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the past decade.

Again, it was brilliant. Your article even mentions a secret plan to rid the North of KJU. Can you imagine what the civilian population would think seeing those eventually streaking through the sky bombing their key rocket sites? It would be mass hysteria 10 fold that of Libya. It's a deterrent, and the right one. This decision came down from the top bass at the pentagon. I'm not going to doubt it, not for a minuet. This is their career, they are the professionals. Have some faith.

 

[1920SF]

Again, it was brilliant. Your article even mentions a secret plan to rid the North of KJU. Can you imagine what the civilian population would think seeing those eventually streaking through the sky bombing their key rocket sites? It would be mass hysteria 10 fold that of Libya. It's a deterrent, and the right one. This decision came down from the top bass at the pentagon. I'm not going to doubt it, not for a minuet. This is their career, they are the professionals. Have some faith.

As one of those people amidst one of those careers...I have ample faith in many things; the deterrent value of a very expensive dog and pony isn't one of them. Here's some numbers on it for you, that also raise valid questions about the employment of those resources in the context of the execution of our national security policy (though much of that is implied in this particular article):
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts...ing_kim_jong_un_with_b_2_bombers_is_expensive

You'll note that the Libya example wasn't a successful deterrence. My frame of reference for that comes from being just offshore and the AV-8B's flying off my boat were peeling armored formations off Benghazi, Adjidbya (several times) and then on down the coastal road-the armored formations didn't give a rat's ass about the strategic bombers or any of the messaging leading up to outside participation in their hostilities; they were doing their job.

As an aside, if you can look up and see a B2 streaking through the sky-that's not a good thing for the B2.

 

[flyfisher11]

For all you youngsters this was a daily occurrence during the cold war. When I was stationed in S. Korea in the '80s we were on constant alert. We would at least weekly launch and intercept N. Korean jets and Soviet Bombers coming down from Vladivostok. This latest asshole in the family line is just firing up his grandpa's way of doing business. FWIW

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Corprin]

I blame guns.

 

[brian4d]

As one of those people amidst one of those careers...I have ample faith in many things; the deterrent value of a very expensive dog and pony isn't one of them. Here's some numbers on it for you, that also raise valid questions about the employment of those resources in the context of the execution of our national security policy (though much of that is implied in this particular article):
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts...ing_kim_jong_un_with_b_2_bombers_is_expensive

You'll note that the Libya example wasn't a successful deterrence. My frame of reference for that comes from being just offshore and the AV-8B's flying off my boat were peeling armored formations off Benghazi, Adjidbya (several times) and then on down the coastal road-the armored formations didn't give a rat's ass about the strategic bombers or any of the messaging leading up to outside participation in their hostilities; they were doing their job.

As an aside, if you can look up and see a B2 streaking through the sky-that's not a good thing for the B2.

Libya and NK are two very different animals. As of now NK has no civil war, just thinking of this is liable to get you shot dead. I will also note that it's not a coincidence they sent our newest tech to the area. The yf-22 and b-2 are state of the art. Why not just fly some sorties with a few f-15's? As mentioned the cold war tactics are back in play. Did you mention an alternative in a previous post to deal with KJU? I'd like to hear your thoughts on fighting fire with fire.

 

[brian4d]

For all you youngsters this was a daily occurrence during the cold war. When I was stationed in S. Korea in the '80s we were on constant alert. We would at least weekly launch and intercept N. Korean jets and Soviet Bombers coming down from Vladivostok. This latest asshole in the family line is just firing up his grandpa's way of doing business. FWIW

Cheers,

Mike

You raise a very good point. I did not grow up during the bay of pigs and the horror of nuclear fallout during the 60's. However, I'm old enough to remember the Iron Curtain coming down in the 80's and 90's. The collapse of the Berlin wall is still very vivid in my mind.

 

[1920SF]

Libya and NK are two very different animals. As of now NK has no civil war, just thinking of this is liable to get you shot dead. I will also note that it's not a coincidence they sent our newest tech to the area. The yf-22 and b-2 are state of the art. Why not just fly some sorties with a few f-15's? As mentioned the cold war tactics are back in play. Did you mention an alternative in a previous post to deal with KJU? I'd like to hear your thoughts on fighting fire with fire.

The newest tech angle does scream one thing to me; USAF desire to showcase their role in within the DoD. If you have an expensive toy that hasn't done a lot in the past 10 years (F-22's never dropped a bomb in support of troops in contact...not that I'm biased toward that or anything) you need to show that it is useful....otherwise why do we have them?

Regarding KJU; where's the fire? Why do anything? Why not ignore his childish rants and back channel through the PRC that what he's doing isn't helpful and it's more their problem than ours when it all comes out in the wash. Why respond at all? Latent insecurity? A need for our allies to feel like the US is going to be there for them? There are other ways to show unity and solidarity rather than escalatory gestures. Doing nothing may have dissolved this situation vice continuing it.

It begs the question; why do anything at all about KJU; other than the DPRK's nuclear ambitions what is our real vested interest in doing more than containing the stupidity in the peninsula and allowing regional entities to deal with it first and foremost. The words I used in previous posts, vital national security interests, are part of a lexicon that needs to be examined closely before we do things. If you can point toward something that actually hits that threshold then a substantive conversation about what to do about the DPRK can ensue.

I would have thought the past decade would have gotten most Americans past the desire to solve all the world's problems. Sometimes the best decision to deal with a situation is no decision (or apparent / viewable decision) at all.

 

[Mike_Rupp]

I would have thought the past decade would have gotten most Americans past the desire to solve all the world's problems. Sometimes the best decision to deal with a situation is no decision (or apparent / viewable decision) at all.

This pretty much sums it up. Who knows exactly why the new little dictator over there is saber rattling, but it's usually a good sign that when someone starts flapping their gums about going to war, there is an alterior motive. When Japan had global ambitions in WW2, they simply attacked us. North Korea has been doing this for several generations and we would have been better served to just let him rant.

For all of Obama's anti-war campaigning before his presidency, it sure seems that he's adopted the neocon foreign policy strategy.

 

[knewsom]

For all of Obama's anti-war campaigning before his presidency, it sure seems that he's adopted the neocon foreign policy strategy.

I think he's overcorrecting.

 

[Eliot]

I don't think there's a single explanation, political weakness, a desire to pull the country together, they all make sense. It may also be an economic decision, if they can get the rest of the world to accept them as a nuclear power they can rid themselvess of much of their conventional forces. The latest line (agreed to just last week) puts economic and military development on equal footing. They can't afford to do that without cuts in military spending.

That's a hopeful read on the situation.

 

[brian4d]

The newest tech angle does scream one thing to me; USAF desire to showcase their role in within the DoD. If you have an expensive toy that hasn't done a lot in the past 10 years (F-22's never dropped a bomb in support of troops in contact...not that I'm biased toward that or anything) you need to show that it is useful....otherwise why do we have them?

Regarding KJU; where's the fire? Why do anything? Why not ignore his childish rants and back channel through the PRC that what he's doing isn't helpful and it's more their problem than ours when it all comes out in the wash. Why respond at all? Latent insecurity? A need for our allies to feel like the US is going to be there for them? There are other ways to show unity and solidarity rather than escalatory gestures. Doing nothing may have dissolved this situation vice continuing it.

It begs the question; why do anything at all about KJU; other than the DPRK's nuclear ambitions what is our real vested interest in doing more than containing the stupidity in the peninsula and allowing regional entities to deal with it first and foremost. The words I used in previous posts, vital national security interests, are part of a lexicon that needs to be examined closely before we do things. If you can point toward something that actually hits that threshold then a substantive conversation about what to do about the DPRK can ensue.

I would have thought the past decade would have gotten most Americans past the desire to solve all the world's problems. Sometimes the best decision to deal with a situation is no decision (or apparent / viewable decision) at all.

I certainly see your point. For some reason the stabilization of that part of the world is more critical for reasons we may not even know. We have tons more data on what's going on in the region that's not available to the general public or NEWS outlets. That's all I can think of.

 

[Corprin]

When Japan had global ambitions in WW2, they simply attacked us.

Japan never had global ambitions, they simply wanted to unite the Asian world against tyrannical 'western' imperialism... and Pearl Harbor could easily be seen as both an attempt to include Hawaii in their circle of power AND a retaliatory attack on the US. I am not saying that Japan was an innocent victim, their post-meji restoration history is wrought with aggressive acts. That being said, rest assured the US was FAR from being the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack our historians would like you to believe.

 

[msggunny]

Japan never had global ambitions, they simply wanted to unite the Asian world against tyrannical 'western' imperialism... and Pearl Harbor could easily be seen as both an attempt to include Hawaii in their circle of power AND a retaliatory attack on the US. I am not saying that Japan was an innocent victim, their post-meji restoration history is wrought with aggressive acts. That being said, rest assured the US was FAR from being the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack our historians would like you to believe.

Do you wear tinfoil hats an keep an eye out for black helicopters?

 

[Mike_Rupp]

Japan never had global ambitions, they simply wanted to unite the Asian world against tyrannical 'western' imperialism... and Pearl Harbor could easily be seen as both an attempt to include Hawaii in their circle of power AND a retaliatory attack on the US. I am not saying that Japan was an innocent victim, their post-meji restoration history is wrought with aggressive acts. That being said, rest assured the US was FAR from being the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack our historians would like you to believe.

I should have known someone would find fault with the global ambitions statement. Whatever you want to call it, Japan had ambitions. My point was that when Japan decided to attack, they didn't saber rattle. They just launched an attack. I have no idea what motivates the leadership of North Korea, but I doubt that they want to go to war.