Korean Peninsula: Likelihood of conflict?

Kim III isn't as crafty as his father or grandpa. Maybe it's because he's still young, maybe it's becuase he's just not so smart. Either way, I suspect the Chinese will read him the riot act quite soon. They do NOT want NK starting a war, not least because it's bad for business. And the bluster is really getting tiresome by now.

 

alot of this may follow from the cycle of mutual dick waving that the us and nk seem to enjoy, each for their own reasons of course:

North Korea and the US must break the cycle of sanctions and bluster | Jim Hoare | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

I feel the tension. It's not pretty.

 

Who would make a telephone call to turn this situation? I would.

If I were President I would call Kim and let him know that we can work together and avoid military conflict. I would invite him to the US, take him to an NBA game, have lunch with him and his buddy Rodman and try to make a personal connection. We don't need to tell him or remind him that we can destroy his nation many times over militarily - he knows that. We don't need to tell or remind him that we can impose continued economic suffering - he knows that. We don't need to prove we have most of the rest of the world on our side - he knows that. We don't need a show of military force - he knows what we are capable of. What he doesn't know is that we are interested in a real resolution to the conflicts and threats of nuclear proliferation.

 

invite him to the US to watch a basketball game? Why? Didn't he have Dennis Rodman visit him already?
--- merged: Apr 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM ---
Seriously, though, he isn't interested in making a deal. He is interested in keeping in power. And he obviously hasn't figured out yet what to do besides imitating what worked for his dad and grandpa. I doubt he's clever enough to figure out a way to keep both power and his head long term. I have to say, I'm skeptical he'd launch a war. I don't think he'll do very much beyond rattling his saber, maybe in a series of successively louder rattles. If he launches a war, he's toast and he knows it (though he would take a lot of people down with him -- but he doesn't care about that, he cares only about himself). So why would he launch a war? Maybe we should just ignore him. Giving him attention (or goodies) only encourages him to act out.

 

I bet he is interested. I guess knowing would require someone to actually talk to him, get to know him. You know see what his concerns are, what are his hopes and dreams...etc. You know treat him like a human being.

You seem to know a lot about who he is , what he wants and how he thinks. I wonder if the State Dept. actually debriefed Dennis Rodman? Would you have done that? Or is Rodman not worthy of seriousness?

 

Please correct me if I am "misremembering" but weren't you critical of Obama for being naive for suggesting he would speak directly with Ahmajinedad?

 

o you know the drill, dux. whatever the administration does, ace would have done something else.

 

I would not hold the position of not talking with someone. I think Obama may have been naive if he thought Iran was developing nuclear capacity for energy use or if he did not take the verbal threats seriously.

I think with Ahmajinedad has a long track record and has made his views clear - I sincerely believe he and other leaders in his country want and would use nuclear weapons. In my view I think the probability of diplomacy working is small and the window of opportunity for diplomacy is small. With North Korea we have a young leader with no track record and I believe his views are being shaped - In my view the probability of diplomacy working is high and the window of opportunity for diplomacy is large. I think the psychological profiles of Ahmajinedad and Kim are very different. I acknowledge that I am not a pro in physiology or diplomacy. But either way with either leader I would make a phone call before taking military action or letting it get to that point.
--- merged: Apr 9, 2013 at 12:59 PM ---

Or, is it your drill of making unsubstantiated claims. I have agreed with actions taken by Obama and I have disagreed with actions taken when Bush was President. It is in writing for anyone who wants to go through my posts over the years here. My views are presented issue by issue.

 

then the is a coincidence of views---one that borders on identity---is a statistical anomaly that should appear in textbooks. or you're just dodging responsibility for your own positions.

to prevent a derail, however: it seems pretty clear that there's some kind of succession problem that's being worked out for k-j-u via this dick-waving. think the model used by those co-dependent twins, w. and ahmendinijad. so much of this is likely for internal political consumption, but it's hard to know in what ways exactly. at the same time, the us is obviously playing a parallel game. which is kinda surreal---by that i mean that it's participating in the dynamic that is scripted for it and doing as expected and so on. thing is that there's little reason to imagine--if you look at how the united states actually operates---that the situation is one that has a psychotic person facing a reasonable one.

 

Iran and NK are two very different kinds of places, with very different kinds of leaders who have very different objectives. I don't pretend to have inside information about either one. All I know is what I read in the papers and online, and I can tell you from personal experience that's not too good (literally, every single time something I was working on was written up in the press, the writeup was at best only about 65% correct). Still, having read this stuff for years and years and years it's possible to extract some grains of truth and make some judgments. One of them is that Iran has a strong (possibly -- maybe probably -- not predominant, but certainly present) messianic/imperialist strain in its leadership and NK does not. Unlike his grandpa, who really did have growth ambitions, Kim just wants to stay alive and in charge (or so it seems to me). So you have to deal with each particular country in a carefully tailored way.

On the other hand, I see no particular reason we should help Kim keep his job and his head. That's why I think we should just ignore him. All he has to offer us is good behavior, and I can't see what realistic options he has for really bad behavior. He's not suicidal so he's not likely to nuke Seoul, he isn't likely to lob a missile at Japan, he isn't likely to lob a missile at Seattle.

Plus, I think there is value to us making the point that getting nukes won't help some two-bit country punch above its weight. If our reaction to NK's bluster is to tell them "go fly a kite," then their acquiring the bomb hasn't much helped them, right? It's a lesson worth disseminating widely.

 

for the record, i wasn't equating iran and nk at all--merely making an analogy between the dysfunctional cycles of dick-waving that cowboy george and his inept band of mayberry machiavellians were indulging in the waning days of their pathetic regime and what is happening now around nk.

one thing this whole mess does raise is the wisdom of global nuclear disarmament.
of course, the national-security state apparatus and it's lackies in public life have re-packaged them in ways that make them appear sensible for the united states to keep.
shame that's off the table.
--- merged: Apr 9, 2013 at 3:45 PM ---
o---and versions of reagan's lunatic star wars program get justified in the process:

US confident it can intercept North Korean missiles, says top admiral | World news | guardian.co.uk

ain't capitalism in the national security state fucking grand?

what? ho! you say....what has this to do with anything?
well, the justifications for continuing to piss away about half us federal outlays on military and "homeland security" stuff---you know, down the toilet of the conservative patronage system---depends on an endless series of Dangerous Situations...

 

Not clear.

Given the presumed level of media control in NK I doubt there is much need for internal political consumption messaging. These gestures are for external political consumption.

The US is playing to China. I suspect the US leadership is willing to risk military conflict, for some unknown to me, for some kind of political play with China. I fear our President is as easily manipulated as is the leader of NK - I suspect neither has strong conviction and is easily moved by those around them.
--- merged: Apr 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM ---

I think we want NK to be a productive part of the international community. I think it is worth the effort and I think it can be done without military conflict. Of course we can drop a few bombs and obliterate the country. However, as in the Art of War, unless we are prepared and willing to totally obliterate NK we have to give an escape route. It is our responsibility to do that given our superior military position and power.

 

I think we can conclude this entire thread with the following:

Kim Jong-un is a gigantic dumbass.

...

Until next time this fat manchild throws a fit.



//Stupidity corrected. Hopefully.