Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
DonAthos

Are We Going to Go to War with North Korea?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Laika said:

or possibly a federal korea which the north has proposed before under the previous leader

Would murder and slavery remain legal, in one half of this "federal Korea"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Or are you suggesting that China is up to something nefarious?

Wear their realpolitik hat, China understands that any move away from the Kim dynasty can lead to a slow opening of North Korea, where it starts to follow the Chinese model of 1978. However, with South Korea so much richer, we could end up with a unified Korea in one generation. China does not want a unified Korea on its doorstep: it sees a strong Japan as a bad enough problem.

In addition, having Kim yap at the U.S. does give China an occasional bone they can throw to the U.S. in calming him down. But, this is not a big deal. A united Korea is -- in their reckoning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If China likes to have a nuclear armed NK as stick to poke the west, perhaps we could give nuclear weapons to Taiwan.  Maybe that, or the threat to do so, could provoke some cooperation from China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grames said:

If China likes to have a nuclear armed NK as stick to poke the west, perhaps we could give nuclear weapons to Taiwan.  Maybe that, or the threat to do so, could provoke some cooperation from China.

A good relationship with China is far more important than anything we could possibly hope to gain by threatening them. And the only way we can maintain what is currently a good relationship is by leaving the balance of power that has been established in Asia alone. This is not Russia. They're not invading their neighbors, they're not going around grabbing back territories they agreed to give up, they're not even interfering in western elections. They're not perfect, but they're trying to get along with us.

We already help Taiwan a lot more than they're helping North Korea. China didn't arm North Korea with nukes (Pakistan did). We DO arm Taiwan with sophisticated weaponry. So, if I were in the US government, I'd stay as far away from the subject of Taiwan as I can through all this. Treat it as an entirely separate issue, and be thankful that the Chinese are willing to do that too.

We should stick with economic pressure. And even that, lightly. China is powerful and confident, and we're lucky they're trying to be somewhat nice.

Quote

give nuclear weapons to Taiwan

For what purpose? Who would Taiwan use them on? Invading Chinese troops, on Taiwanese soil? Or Chinese cities? The Taiwanese and Chinese are the same ethnic group. They're not trying to annihilate each other, they're having a political disagreement.

Imo, the main thing that move would achieve is that, after the PLA strolls in (in a war that would be both a given and very brief), China would have some US nukes in its arsenal. And the US would have an adversarial China to deal with, for the next few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Nicky said:

For what purpose? Who would Taiwan use them on? Invading Chinese troops, on Taiwanese soil? Or Chinese cities? The Taiwanese and Chinese are the same ethnic group. They're not trying to annihilate each other, they're having a political disagreement.

China claims Taiwan as it territory,  Taiwan wants to preserve its independence.  That is not a minor political disagreement, it is the most serious possible political disagreement which will inevitably lead to war unless one side or the other gives up its current position.

Nuclear weapons could be used on invading troops while they were still at sea or in the air.  Nuclear warfare at sea is far more viable and plausible than exchanges on land because the collateral damage is minimized and the fallout is reduced.   Nuclear torpedoes are particularly effective at clearing submarines that have set up a naval blockade because they only need to be close not precisely on target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EC    16

It's an error to believe that a dictator of a country that enslaves, starves, and murders his own people can be counted on to act rationally, even in self preservation. This is a war that should have happened a thousand times over so far. The reason why none of you in the above can think of other "solutions" that make any sense is because no such solutions exist in reality. You don't reason or bargain with a man pointing a gun at you threatening to shoot you--you eliminate the threat.

I want to add before I forget: All that the last 20 years of bargaining with NK not to develop the means to attack us has brought is increasingly the ability of NK to attack us.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EC said:

 This is a war that should have happened a thousand times over so far. The reason why none of you in the above can think of other "solutions"

We're not trained intelligence officers, that's why. We're being armchair generals, who always know less than the people who make decisions. When I said cyberattack before, I meant things like STUXNet that are able to harm physical infrastructure (and all the cyberweapons made by the US you don't know about). I don't care that Grames responded to that rudely, and he makes an okay point about Taiwan, but I still don't see that as much of an important option.

 If a gun is pointed at you, any method that works best is your best action. Psychological manipulation works great, and probably cheaper than war. Plus it's better to transform enemies into allies as with Japan, as opposed to destroying what little bit remains.

Beyond that, we're speculating.

21 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

China does not want a unified Korea on its doorstep: it sees a strong Japan as a bad enough problem.

Why not? I'm not up on Chinese-Korean geopolitics. What would happen to China?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Grames said:

Nuclear weapons could be used on invading troops while they were still at sea or in the air.  Nuclear warfare at sea is far more viable and plausible than exchanges on land because the collateral damage is minimized and the fallout is reduced.   Nuclear torpedoes are particularly effective at clearing submarines that have set up a naval blockade because they only need to be close not precisely on target.

Is it your position that Taiwan's President, Miss Tsai Ing-wen, would order the unilateral use of nuclear weapons against an invading Chinese military?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Grames said:

I don't know, but being invaded would certainly change some people's minds about what 'peaceful coexistence' looks like.

I'm just wondering, do you think in the long run that NK should be bombed? Your Taiwan idea sounds like a deterrent as in MAAD, I don't see what your long range idea is to eliminate the NK threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2017 at 8:11 PM, Eiuol said:

Why not? I'm not up on Chinese-Korean geopolitics. What would happen to China?

Large, rich neighbors are a strategic threat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want NK to be bombed.  Let NK start the war.

NK continues to exist because of Chinese trade and foreign policy choices.  China, being a facist police state itself, uses foreign trade implemented by state owned corporations to implement its foreign policy.  North Korea could be strangled to death simply by  trade sanctions if China cooperated.  NK missile and weapons programs require computers and other equipment which they simply should not be able to acquire.   

2015 North Korea Trade data , an interactive breakdown of what and how much comes or goes to where.

Washington Post article about North Korean trade.

North Korea supplements its cash accounts gained through trade with robberies of the international electronic banking system.

TALE OF THE TAPE: WHAT WOULD NORTH KOREA BRING TO THE FIGHT?, short and highly readable summary of NK capabilities dated May 30 2017 based on publically available information.

In summary of the above, all of the headline grabbing NK misbehavior is based on what they have spent their money on lately.  Target that trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes    1

North Korea is blowing smoke.  And what better target than our current president, who will spew his aggressive, macho rhetoric in response.

We all know that America has the best and most advance missile intercept weapons in the world.  North Korea simply does not have the technology to thwart our missile defense.  Any missile launches against us would most certainly not get any farther than the Korean Sea.  Talk of a pre-emptive strike by America is foolish and dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this last Saturday.  It was an announced on Friday that a review of trade violations against China would (and did) start on (this last) Monday.  

On 8/12/2017 at 9:00 AM, New Buddha said:

The current situation with NK should be viewed less as the US vs. NK and more the US vs. China - and trade has much to do with it.

1

 

Here is a link to the Friday news story about the trade investigations.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/11/trumps-china-trade-crackdown-coming-monday-241558

On Monday, North Korea announced that maybe they won't be launching missiles at Guam after all .  Remember, citizens born on Guam are US citizens -  launching missiles at Guam is no different than launching missiles at Hawaii or Los Angeles (or Portland, OR).  It was not just a coincidence that NOKO's announcement just happened to occur three days after the trade sanction investigations against China were announced.

It also has to be remembered that, last April, when Trump launched the 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian airbase (after Syria used chemical weapons) the Chinese President Xi Jinping learned about the attack over dinner at Mara Lago, where he was dining with Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/syria-strikes-were-aimed-at-china-control-risks.html

For those of you on this forum too young to remember Reagan (I was 13 when he was inaugurated), the Left was pissing themselves over the belief that "Mad Ronnie" was going to start a war with the Soviet Union.  The Soviets also believed it.  He stood up to them and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed.

After 8 years of Obama's "strategic patience" which allowed NOKO to develop nuclear weapons and will  soon result in Iran having them as well, it's good to see that we finally have a President who understands how to use "strategic impatience."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trump Administration effectively backed China into a corner over North Korea - and this was months in the planning.  If fighting had broken out against NK - and China stood by and did nothing to prevent it - then leveling retaliatory sanctions against China would have been seen as both palatable and just.  It would have exposed them for what they still are - a power-hungry dictatorship willing use puppet regimes like North Korea to advance their economic agenda.  Now, to be fair, President Xi Jinping is probably a fairly good person interesting in reforms, but he doesn't necessarily have complete control over the Chinese military or foreign policy.  There are still many of the "old guard" in China who are reluctant to cede power -- which is why, after all these years, it is still a brutally repressive regime.  For all we know, XI may have planned this with Trump, knowing what the Administration was doing all along.

We have tremendous economic power that we can bring to bear against China to achieve peace and stability in SE Asia - if we are willing to use it.

Trump's "buy American and hire American" policy terrifies China.  So too do the NAFTA renegotiations, since China dump products in Mexico in violation of NAFTA trade agreements (it has to do with the certification of point-of-origin wrt products used in assembly plants in Mexico).  China needs us far more than we need them.  But Trump's slogan it is largely a bargaining chip.  He has no interest in isolationism or protectionist trade policies.  As with all thing Trump,  you have to read between the lines.  Everything is a negotiation tool with him.  If you are chasing the shiny object, then you are doing exactly what he wants you to do.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×