Running North Korea freakout thread

Mods, I'll certainly understand if you feel compelled to remove this thread, since it clearly has political elements. However I think that this issue is important enough that it bears serious discussion in its own thread, even if/when the politics thread returns. JMO. I'll respect any decision.

Some might recall that last week I posted this treatise from Foreign Policy magazine with the laudably clear title It's Time to Bomb North Korea. Among other things, it encouraged American policymakers not to fret too much about potential retaliation on South Korea because any death and destruction would be largely the fault of the South Koreans for, among other supposed faults, not building more and better bomb shelters.

Then this past weekend, I read this story by a former nuclear strategist from the Pentagon. It argues against the above, which it characterizes as the "bloody nose" strategy that has gained serious currency at the highest levels of the Trump Administration: a surprise, pre-emptive, strategic bombing of North Korean nuclear facilities.

Want To Strike North Korea? It's Not Going to Go The Way You Think

I am very disturbed at how little national discussion there has been about the "bloody nose" plan. And of course, those in the administration who think this is the way to go don't want to have a public debate about it, because duh, "surprise." But even putting aside for a second Trump's "my button is bigger than yours" Tweets, the public stance of this administration seems pretty clear, or what passes for clear these days. 1) It is simply unacceptable that North Korea achieve nuclear capability, especially a weapon capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. 2) Diplomacy is not the answer – "Save your energy, Rex, we'll do what has to be done."

Given those two beliefs, a "targeted" pre-emptive military strike naturally makes the most sense, and the window is closing given North Korea's rapid advancement in technology. The problem is that as the Politico story above argues quite persuasively (IMO), the bloody nose strategy is a terrible fit for this particular enemy at this time.

And here's where I think Trump's more over-the-top Tweets that belittle and threaten Kim are a very big problem: 1) It has moved the entire range of potential U.S. responses to the more bellicose, such that the "bloody nose" strategy seems more reasonable every day since it's not as crazy as "my button's bigger than yours"; 2) It has ratcheted up the tension level such that Kim will naturally view any "bloody nose" attack in the worst and broadest possible light, and respond accordingly, including the "smoke 'em while you got 'em" approach; 3) In this atmosphere, even legitimate accidents and misunderstandings – which are more common than one might think – could have tragic consequences.

Consider that just this past weekend, both Hawaii and Japan had false alerts of incoming missiles. Is it really some huge leap to see how something in that vein could end very, very badly? Shouldn't it be clear that tensions have been pushed too far for too little benefit?

Trump churns up so much wake every week (day?) on so many issues that it's hard for us to stay focused on how he's made things so much more dangerous with North Korea. And I remain surprised that the markets have also basically started ignoring North Korea as a threat. But one place that I bet remains focused on what Trump says about North Korea: North Korea's leadership. And that's a problem. Plus, for a Chaos President, what better way to flip the headlines than to finally say yes to your generals calling for a manly "targeted strike" on North Korea? Hey, that worked great in Syria, right? So same-same? What could go wrong? (Announcer: "A lot.")

More reading to scare you:

On how an accident could prove tragic:
How The U.S. and North Korea Could Stumble Into World War III

A story from Asia expert Dan Drezner:
Tell me how Trump's North Korea gambit ends

 

The US position onNorth Korea is clever and subversive and may be one of the greatest and most successful foreign policy gambits since the TrojanHorse. By being less predictable than North Korea and by appearing to be less rational than the North Korean leadership, America has pushed the2 Koreas on a path towards cooperation. With no failsafe to protect them South Korea must approach North Korea on more equitable terms. North Korea cannot rely on the fact that US policy will be moderate and war averse. Until now there was never a real risk the US would go all in. Now American policy seems so haphazard that the North cannot predict what the US will do and they have no choice but to meet the South with less vitriol.

 

This was a good explanatory piece about the pros and cons of various options from last summer.

How to Deal With North Korea

 

I think we should stick to belittling our own leaders.

In all seriousness, P, as someone who seemingly has been following this issue closely, do you think stopping NK from developing capable nukes is a worthwhile endeavor?

 

Yes, it could be a brilliant and subversive strategy, developed by the brilliant minds of this current administration.
Or, more likely, the U.S. -- politically, not its citizenry - is just becoming more and more like North Korea -- led by a child puppet with the generals at the strings.

 

If we're going to war in Korea this year, it will be in March. That's what the generals will want, for the longest possible window for campaigning weather.

 

If you think the US military is not actively training for an imminent war with North Korea, you haven't been paying attention.

Here Are Some Interesting Details About The Way U.S. B-2 Bombers Trained Over The U.S. To Strike North Korea

^^This one should scare the hell out of anyone with a loved one in South Korea or Japan!

Six B-52 Strategic Bombers Deploying To Guam To Replace Six B-1s And Join Three B-2Mes Already There

Three B-2 Stealth Bombers Have Deployed To Guam In Support of U.S. Pacific Command’s Bomber Assurance and Deterrence Mission

 

Thanks, I will take a look.

 

I don't think we can reasonably stop them from developing capable nukes without some sort of military intervention, and maybe not even then. IMO it's really just a matter of time, and they've progressed faster the last few years than we had previously thought was likely. And if we're unable to achieve the goal of preventing NK from nukes – or can't achieve it without too high a cost in blood and treasure – then IMO it's dangerous to talk and act as if we can.

If one accepts that – and maybe you don't – but if one does, then the matter shifts more toward: 1) timing – can we delay it as long as possible, hoping that some sort of game-turning event happens in the interim (a NK coup?); 2) if/when NK has the capable nukes – or even more capable than now, because I believe they already likely can deliver nukes to S. Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, etc. – how do try to make the situation as stable and safe as it can be?

I don't see how either of those can be accomplished without painstaking diplomacy. Military action, or the threat of same, can be a tool in that box. But I think what is best is some broader deal on their nuclear program, and we'd have to give something to get something. We'd also want as much of the international community as possible to sign on, especially China and Russia. Which means giving even more.

In other words, we'd be looking to do something like the Iran deal, which China and Russia both signed onto. I don't recall you being a fan, and obviously Trump isn't. And while I think such an agreement with North Korea would (depending on the terms) be a "worthwhile endeavor," this administration has made very clear that they're categorically opposed to such agreements. Besides, we no longer have the juice or moral authority to lead such an effort even if we wanted to.

But hey, maybe heyabbot's right and this is all some brilliant strategery. It's not impossible. A kid can dream, right?

 

I agree with Heyabbott and think this is one rare place where Trump's unpredictability — and his Twitter tantrums — probably play in the country's favor.

 

After 70+ years, we need to get over this notion that "X wants to develop a nuke so it can strike Y!"

X wants to develop a nuke so it will not be attacked by Y or by anyone else. Period. Nations with nukes do not get attacked. And I do not blame any nation for taking the step to acquire nukes for that very purpose.