North Korea Is Ready To Attack!

For better or worse, Bush likely wouldn’t have let it get this far. He wielded a heavy hammer, whereas Obama seems more intent on taking careful, measured steps.

And there is the problem with the political spectrum handily summed up. Democrats do nothing; Republicans do the wrong thing. Conservatives are fools who rush in; we liberals are overthinking cowards who'd rather spend so much time getting used to the temperature of the pool by geeeeeently sliding each toe in one at a time that we never actually get anything done at all. The right wing sees everything in stark terms of black and white (Romney, when speaking vaguely of going to war with a jillion countries during the recent presidential debates, actually said something about "going after the bad guys"!); the left wing hesitates to so much as call anything "this color" or "that color" for fear of offending anybody else who brands themselves that way. "In fact it's best that one not even look at it that way in the first place. Hmmm...maybe there's an alternative to thinking of a matter in terms of colors. Let me ponder this one for ninety years instead of actually tackling the issue."

Why just Western countries like USA and Canada would or should react to this situation first? I think both China and Russia too have already reacted - by political level. Possible conflict would has a lot of influence to they too. Also if USA for example would make any kind of attack against North Korea, it must has full support from China and Russia. Both countries seem to be more interesting to increase they economy (like China in Africa countries) than conflict in they back yard.

Some days ago I read article with interviews of South Koreans and they told that they aren´t very worry about situation in general - similar happens usually after elections of South Korea. In the South Korea had presidental elections at December 2012...

format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb

Why just Western countries like USA and Canada would or should react to this situation first?

The US will definitely support South Korea in the event of an attack because they are an ally and this commitment was reaffirmed a few days ago by the US. However, most military analysts believe that the South would probably win even on its own. The North does have the advantage of a huge conscript army and the entire devotion of the state to warfare, but the South is better equipped. The South's biggest weakness is that their capital city is very close to the border and will undoubtedly suffer greatly.

format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb

I think both China and Russia too have already reacted - by political level.

The key player is China. China saved N.Korea back in the 50s and it has almost single-handedly kept them alive ever since. China has been the military guarantee that the South will never attack the North first. However, even China is becoming frustrated with the North. The North are playing a dangerous game. They believe that by increasing the tension that will extract more concessions from the US, as has happened before. But they have played this game too often and it's not working this time.

The South and the US may now feel that if war is inevitable, then better to have it now before the North develops any further nuclear capacity.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam

For better or worse, Bush likely wouldn’t have let it get this far. He wielded a heavy hammer, whereas Obama seems more intent on taking careful, measured steps.

I don't this is justified. The sanctions regime is tougher under Obama. And it was the tendency of the US to offer concessions in the past which has (arguably) helped to create then present crisis.

So, there are two main dangers - that the South/US will choose war now to avoid a worse one later. Or, that the North as so crazy they will attack because they've talked themselves into it. The NK leadership is concerned with its own survival, not the people. But how can they back down now without losing face? They have put themselves into a difficult and dangerous position.

What's the best chance of a solution? That lies with China. Only China has any sort of influence over NK. If China pulls the plug on its economic/food support, NK will collapse within a year. China can solve this crisis by itself. But thus far, China is more interested in preserving the irrelevant strategic logic of 50 years ago and retaining a Communist 'buffer state' on its borders. Even though China itself is no longer strictly Communist.

format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude

Iraq had no sign of wmd before the invasion and none were found but here we have a country threatening destruction and has known nuclear weapons yet no physical measure, no pre-emptive strike, has taken place against them.

I'm sure shock and awe two would have started by now if NK had oil.

Wholly incorrect. The Korean war ended in 1953 but only by truce - peace has never been agreed. So if the US really wanted to attack NK, they've had more than enough time to do it. Throughout 6 decades and any number of presidents there has never been the slightest sign that they were even thinking about attack.

The decision about attacking the North lies in the first instance with the South, not the US. And so long as China continues to protect NK it will never happen.

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa

neither of them wants war. Neither does North Korea, as it would mean the end of the regime.

I agree with most of what you say, except that NK cannot be relied up to behave in a logical way. They have lived in the weird bubble that is NK society so long that you wonder if they can tell the difference between reality and their own rhetoric. It's not even clear who is really in charge of the state. The regime could feel the need to start a war simply to save face (remember, they have done several small scale attacks in the past that killed SK citizens).

It's very dangerous if people feel NK is so close to pulling the trigger all the time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude

How is what I said wholly incorrect?

These are some points I made, please show me my error:
- Iraq had no sign of wmd before the invasion (did they have solid proof that Iraq had nuclear weapons?)
- none were found (can you really dispute this?)
- here we have a country threatening destruction (i.e. the recent threat they made, with nuclear weapons - again, can you really dispute this?)

So what you mention about truce for all these years and US having a chance to attack etc. is all irrelevant - what I am saying is that recently the NK's have threatened all out nuclear war with the US (never mind the SK!) and are known to have nuclear weapons yet the US is not attacking them in pre-emptive self defence even though they went all out with Iraq over no real evidence. Why the discrepancy? I'm assuming it's due to the oil in Iraq and the geopolitical advantage the US gain from being in control of those reserves whereas NK doesn't offer the same benefit so the US is not rushing to pre-emptively attack. That's my point.

Why does the United States treat North Korea differently from Iraq?
Bush administration officials argue that North Korea and Iraq--both rogue states pursuing worrisome nuclear weapons programs--actually pose rather different challenges. Despite North Korea's disclosure last week of a secret nuclear-arms program, the United States is not threatening war to disarm it--unlike Iraq.


How do U.S. officials describe the difference between North Korea and Iraq?
"Saddam Hussein in recent years has invaded two of his neighbors, used his weapons of mass destruction, and [Iraq] is a relatively wealthy country," Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Financial Times. "North Korea is an isolated country with no wealth, a broken economy, a broken society, with neighbors who are not happy with what it's done." The White House says that force may be required to topple Saddam because he is too aggressive to be contained, too reckless to be deterred, and too dangerous to Middle Eastern stability to be tolerated. On the other hand, the administration argues that North Korea--a starving country that may well already have one or two nuclear bombs--can be handled by containment, deterrence, diplomacy, and economic pressure. U.S. officials say North Korea may be willing to give up its nuclear program and poses less of a threat to U.S. interests.


What leverage does the United States have with North Korea?
It can offer two key things to the impoverished, isolated Stalinist holdout: aid and better relations with other countries. "The North Koreans are desperately in need of help from the outside," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading Iraq hawk. "We have leverage on North Korea that we do not have on Iraq." In a 1994 deal, the United States, South Korea, and Japan offered massive foreign aid--including a $4 billion project to build two nuclear reactors that couldn't be used for military purposes--in return for North Korea's promise to abandon its nuclear ambitions. North Korea also relied heavily upon the 500,000 tons of fuel oil per year that America donated under the terms of the 1994 agreement. If Washington withdraws its economic aid and urges its friends to do likewise, Pyongyang's economy might never recover.


Is the 1994 deal "nullified"?
Powell said that when North Korea confirmed that it had been secretly seeking nuclear weapons, it also told the United States that the 1994 deal was "nullified." Powell added, "Well, when you have an agreement between two parties and one says it's nullified, then it's hard to see what you do with such an agreement." But the official station Radio Pyongyang said Monday that North Korea has backed away from its assertion that the deal was dead.


Do nearby Asian states have leverage with North Korea?
Yes, to a degree. South Korea and Japan--North Korea's key estranged neighbors--have recently tried to reach out to North Korea, and experts say Pyongyang may be reluctant to lose the promise of warmer ties and more aid. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi recently visited North Korea, and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung has also made major diplomatic overtures. North Korea's closest regional ally is China, which is also not eager to see North Korea acquire a bomb of its own; the Bush administration hopes to get China to pressure North Korea when Chinese President Jiang Zemin meets President Bush this week in Crawford, Texas.


Could the United States use force to make North Korea disarm?
Not easily. U.S. military action could lead North Korea to unleash its arsenal, both conventional and nonconventional, and devastate South Korea--as well as the 37,000 U.S. troops deployed there. Despite his country's desperate poverty, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has retained a massive conventional army, much of it deployed near the demilitarized zone that has separated the two Koreas since the Korean War ended in 1953. Some 950,000 North Korean troops are just 20 miles or more from Seoul, the South Korean capital. Compared to Iraq, Powell says North Korea "is a lot stronger militarily, but it is sitting on a very rotten base with respect to its economy."


Is North Korea's nuclear program more advanced than Iraq's?
Yes. Like Iraq, North Korea has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for years; unlike Iraq, North Korea may well already have the bomb. A December CIA National Intelligence Estimate reported that North Korea had probably made one or two plutonium-based nuclear weapons by the mid-1990s. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he believes North Korea possesses "several" such weapons.


Does North Korea have a stronger missile program than Iraq?
Yes. North Korea has test-fired a missile with close to intercontinental range, while Iraq relies on a small stash of souped-up Scud missiles--capable of hitting nearby countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia but notoriously inaccurate. Advanced missiles could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction. To get hard currency, North Korea has also reportedly sold ballistic-missile technology to Iran, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan.


Has North Korea ever used weapons of mass destruction?
No. Still, it has a considerable arsenal, even beyond whatever nuclear arms it may have. The Pentagon says that North Korea has stockpiles of chemical weapons, and it's also thought to have an active but primitive biological weapons program.


Can Iraq be handled by deterrence?
Experts hotly disagree. Some note that Iraq refrained from using chemical weapons or launching terrorist attacks against America during Operation Desert Storm after Secretary of State James Baker and President George H.W. Bush warned that such actions would mean the "severest consequences." The threat of Israeli nuclear reprisal also seems to have deterred Saddam from placing chemical or biological warheads on the Scuds that Iraq fired into Israeli cities during the Gulf War. But warnings from Baker and Bush did not stop Saddam from torching Kuwait's oil fields. Iraq hawks like the Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack argue that over the long haul, deterrence is too risky because Saddam is "often unintentionally suicidal--that is, he miscalculates his odds of success and frequently ignores the likelihood of catastrophic failure."


Can North Korea be handled by deterrence?
We don't know. Some experts argue that Kim Jong Il is so desperately broke that he's merely out for survival, not for regional dominance--and therefore can be induced to trade his nuclear program for economic help. Skeptics warn that Pyongyang's nuclear disclosure proves the folly of trusting tyrants.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

I just read an interesting article about this which suggests that NK does have a plan and a timetable. A hugely important date in the NK calendar is April 15th, known as the Day of the Sun, which celebrates the birth of Kim Il-sung (the Korean equivalent to Stalin). Based on observed missile movements and preparations, it is suggested that NK is deliberately building towards this day and planning to test launch a new Musudan missile (built with Soviet and Iranian support). They won't aim it a US target, but it will provide the symbolic climax to their rhetoric without leading to actual war.

It looks like China is on the edge of withdrawing any support of NK.

US Might Have Unlikely Ally Against N. Korea: China

wser) – American efforts to rein in North Korea have long run into one big roadblock called China, but that might be changing, reports the New York Times. New President Xi Jinping seems more receptive to working with the West to keep the North in check, as seen in Beijing's quick support of the recent UN sanctions. The development has touched off a relative frenzy of diplomacy between DC and Beijing on the subject, including a call from President Obama to Jinping, says the Times.

Another sign of the shift is that China has not objected in public or private over US moves to beef up its military presence in the region amid Pyongyang's near-daily threats. “What we have seen is a subtle change in Chinese thinking,” says Kurt Campbell, a former assistant secretary of state. Beijing seems to have concluded that it's no longer worth jeopardizing its ties to the West, and its own national security, over the whims of the North.

SOURCE

People tend to forget just how much economic investment China has in the USA. Very many US businesses are now under Chinese ownership. In addition The USA is the Nation that owes the most money to China. China is one of the largest debts the USA owes out.

As of January 2013, $5.6 trillion or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were the People's Republic of China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each.[7]

SOURCE

It just may turn out China has more loyalty to the American dollar than it has to NK

Icee, I was just ranting about a general point.

Independent, I was more responding to that quote than repeating it.