Korea Thread: Liberal Moon Jae In Elected

[mongers]

A veteran BBC reporter has just got back from a covert visit to North Korea, posing as a tourist. 
Four minute interview here:

Inside North Korea: 'It's a mad, sad and bad place'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22003715

[Sheilbh]

We have a commitment to defend South Korea.  He fucks with them and he's fucking with us.  And his dad & grandpa fucked with us directly on multiple occasions.  I don't want war, but if it happens it'd be nice to settle some accounts.

Oh I agree entirely. But it's easy to be a lot more hawkish when you're in the US or Europe. The irritation of him fucking with the US and the satisfaction of slapping him down should be balanced against the real risks for South Korea and what they want.

I'd love for the Chinese to help out.  Thing is, I'm not sure they're grown up enough to do anything to assist in NK regime change, even if doing so means less fighting on the peninsula.

This is the wrong way to see it. The Chinese won't want to help you, they won't want to assist in regime change. But if there's a prospect of conventional war on the peninsula and that it could escalate then it's in their interests to avoid that. If they can do that by offering Kim a way out - possibly with building a more pliable Chinese client state - then that's a good thing. But what then can't happen is for American politicians to start sounding off about the Chinese sheltering Kim - as would be the case if someone took Saddam or Milosevic. It would be in China's interests, but it would help too.

Politicans on our side should avoid bluster-- but they should be very clear and firm in what they say, and be ready to back it up.  I'm tired of the chicken shit rhetoric of the past.

I think they should avoid rhetoric. As I say they need to be calm and deliberate in what they say and be ready to back it up, or to back down depending on the situation. It'd be unhelpful if they ended up in a similar situation of struggling to de-escalate due to loose tongues.

So far I think the balance has been about right.

So the implication is that we should just continue to be blubbering vaginas and let him do his act of aggression without responding?  No thanks.

No. Play it by ear based on the best information. As CdM has pointed out this is the most visible response to North Korean provocation I can think of. Kim may do something to claim victory but then stop and slowly return things to 'normal'. It could be that suspending South Koreans in Kaesong is part of that. But there's no need to match escalation for escalation, though obviously this depends what information Seoul and DC are getting.

My gut tells me Kim won't do anything.  He & his generals see us (or certainly ought to) preparing for a stronger response than we've offered in the past.  I'd wager that he'll try to pull his internal propaganda coup this time without shooting at us or the South Koreans.

They've shot at South Koreans over less, so that could well be something they do. Or, as I say, Kaesong could be his way of escalating before declaring victory and returning to 'normal'. I agree that I still don't think anything'll happen (for me more because I think it's something in Pyongyang that this is all about) but the risk of accidental escalation to war and then to potential nuclear attacks is sufficient to be very, very cautious.

[derspiess]

This is the wrong way to see it. The Chinese won't want to help you, they won't want to assist in regime change. But if there's a prospect of conventional war on the peninsula and that it could escalate then it's in their interests to avoid that. If they can do that by offering Kim a way out - possibly with building a more pliable Chinese client state - then that's a good thing. But what then can't happen is for American politicians to start sounding off about the Chinese sheltering Kim - as would be the case if someone took Saddam or Milosevic. It would be in China's interests, but it would help too.

You misread me.  I wasn't talking about the Chinese helping us, per se.  I was talking about them being grown up enough to take action that is in our (US, China, etc.) mutual interests and avoid their old juvenile habit of just going with whatever spites the US. 

You think convincing the North Korean leadership to step down and retire comfortably in China is in China's interests.  And I think so, too.  But does the Chinese leadership think so? 

Btw, does anyone have an idea of Chinese public opinion regarding North Korea?  I know Jacob mentioned they have an unkind nickname for Kim Jong Un, but I'd be interested to know how much Chinese popular support there is, particularly among the ultranationalist crowd, toward the Norks.  I'd suspect there's still a connection due to the Korean War history.  And if there is, that would be something of an obstacle for the Chinese leadership to act the way we think they should.

[CountDeMoney]

I think China would be quite upset with us if we retaliate against North Korean use of a nuclear weapon with our own nuclear response. 
That would be poorly received in Beijing.

[Razgovory]

On the plus side it would show dedication to the idea of non-proliferation.

[Jacob]

Btw, does anyone have an idea of Chinese public opinion regarding North Korea?  I know Jacob mentioned they have an unkind nickname for Kim Jong Un, but I'd be interested to know how much Chinese popular support there is, particularly among the ultranationalist crowd, toward the Norks.  I'd suspect there's still a connection due to the Korean War history.  And if there is, that would be something of an obstacle for the Chinese leadership to act the way we think they should.

I am sure there are factions who will want to support the North Koreans and who will wail about US imperialism and whatnot for internal political reasons, but I believe the general population is mostly tired, embarrassed and/or indifferent about them.

Certainly weibo is full of people mocking Kim, and as such things go the leadership has signaled their displeasure with the regime as well. After all, they signed off on the sanctions.

Personally I think the biggest risk with the Chinese is hitting some of their own nationalist buttons rather than anything to do directly with North Korea. Say if the US stops by some disputed islands in the South China Sea or "accidentally" blows up a Chinese embassy or military asset or something; the Chinese can be pretty prickly about getting pushed around. But I don't think the average Chinese person gives a fuck about North Korea.

[Jacob]

I think China would be quite upset with us if we retaliate against North Korean use of a nuclear weapon with our own nuclear response. 
That would be poorly received in Beijing.

Yes. I can picture them being pretty unhappy about that. I expect lots of other people would too.

If the N. Koreans did succeed in killing Americans with a nuclear weapon at what point would nuclear retaliation be unavoidable? I'm assuming that a nuclear suitcase killing one guy on a boat and poisoning five other dudes wouldn't necessitate nuking Pyongyang... but beyond that?

[CountDeMoney]

I think China would be quite upset with us if we retaliate against North Korean use of a nuclear weapon with our own nuclear response. 
That would be poorly received in Beijing.

Yes. I can picture them being pretty unhappy about that. I expect lots of other people would too.

Fortunately we're not married to that response in our nuclear weapons policy in a regional conflict, even in the event there's battlefield use of a small tactical detonation by the North Koreans.  What with the Korean peninsula being in such a sensitive neighborhood and all. 

[Queequeg]

If the North Koreans hit Tokyo or Seoul, I don't think there is any other option but to hit Pyongyang.  I don't think there SHOULD be another option.  You don't get to get away with the attempted murder of the 35,000,000 people of the greater Tokyo area, and the ACTUAL murder of a percentage of that.

[CountDeMoney]

If the N. Koreans did succeed in killing Americans with a nuclear weapon at what point would nuclear retaliation be unavoidable? I'm assuming that a nuclear suitcase killing one guy on a boat and poisoning five other dudes wouldn't necessitate nuking Pyongyang... but beyond that?

Our current Nuclear Posture Review from 2010 has some pretty interesting reading, and some ROE with caveats:
http://www.defense.gov/NPR/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

We no longer reserve nukes as the sole response to biological or chemical attacks, we would not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation state that is a party to the NPT; regarding nuclear states that aren't parties to the NPT or flaunts it as a signatory?  Game on. Particularly if it involves our allies under our umbrella like the ROK or Japan.

[Queequeg]

Good.  Japan has suffered enough atomic horror without the fucking Norks. 

[CountDeMoney]

Good.  Japan has suffered enough atomic horror without the fucking Norks.

The U.S. nuclear posture has a vital role to play in regional security architectures. Proliferating states must understand that any attack on the United States, or our allies and partners, will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons will be met with a response that would be effective and overwhelming. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, will determine the precise nature of any U.S. response.  But by pursuing nuclear weapons, such states must understand that they have significantly raised the stakes of any conflict.

I think it's pretty clear what's between the lines.

[jimmy olsen]

I thought this piece was interesting and a bit sobering:

There not going to have the capability to deliver a nuke with a missile for years. Better to worry about Kim having some of his fanatics deliver a warhead into Incheon harbor with a minuture sub and detonate it.

Some more realistic worries
http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/#axzz2PRbKohjk

If the North Korean Peoples Army (KPA) were to start a doctrinal, conventional artillery barrage focused on South Korean forces, we could expect to see around three thousand casualties in the first few minutes, but the casualty rate would quickly drop as the surprise wears off and counter-battery fires slow down the North Korean rates of fire.  If the KPA were to engage Seoul in a primarily counter-value fashion by firing into Seoul instead of primarily aiming at military targets, there would likely be around thirty-thousand casualties in a short amount of time.

[Tamas]

But what then can't happen is for American politicians to start sounding off about the Chinese sheltering Kim - as would be the case if someone took Saddam or Milosevic. It would be in China's interests, but it would help too.

A Brit putting down his chips on appeasement. Who would have thought?!

[Martinus]

But what then can't happen is for American politicians to start sounding off about the Chinese sheltering Kim - as would be the case if someone took Saddam or Milosevic. It would be in China's interests, but it would help too.

A Brit putting down his chips on appeasement. Who would have thought?!

How the hell is that appeasement?