How to handle North Korea?

ceaserkhan22 wrote:“I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire.”-Kim, yea sure sounds a lot like a guy that really only wants peace. Appeasement by the last few presidents is what let Rocket man get the bomb. Chamberlain had a similar approach to Hitler, see how that turned out. I don't agree with a lot of ^"or"^ president's policies, but at least he understands how to lead with strength unlike more recent administrations.

Kim has to make those threats; no one will take him seriously otherwise. If he kept telling us he's no threat to us, we'd jump at the chance to take advantage of his perceived weakness. You know how parks advise people to make themselves look as big and strong as possible when confronted by a predatory animal? Well, Kim's the person and Trump's the mountain lion. And Trump's angry tweets are like poking a Korean tiger with a stick. It doesn't turn out well.

And I don't think the Hitler analogy is a sound one. Kim isn't trying to conquer the world here; once he's got himself a credible and effective nuclear deterrent and his regime is securely entrenched, mission accomplished.

Max Hess wrote:
Kim has to make those threats; no one will take him seriously otherwise. If he kept telling us he's no threat to us, we'd jump at the chance to take advantage of his perceived weakness. You know how parks advise people to make themselves look as big and strong as possible when confronted by a predatory animal? Well, Kim's the person and Trump's the mountain lion. And Trump's angry tweets are like poking a Korean tiger with a stick. It doesn't turn out well.

And I don't think the Hitler analogy is a sound one. Kim isn't trying to conquer the world here; once he's got himself a credible and effective nuclear deterrent and his regime is securely entrenched, mission accomplished.

Everything you're saying there is right except for one thing I have a bit of a problem with. That's the "tweets=poking the tiger" bit. I don't view Trump's tweets as helpful, but they aren't particularly dangerous, either. As you said yourself, Kim's smart enough not to actually strike first; he knows he wouldn't live to see the mushroom cloud. So nothing President Moron says will provoke him into attacking unless Kim becomes absolutely certain he's about to be invaded.

The issue is, Trump's tweets might sound scary, but they're completely unaccompanied by any warning signs of a US attack, up to and including:

1). Major materiel deployment to the Korean peninsula/Okinawa/Guam inconsistent with scheduled exercises (esp. bombers and antimissile systems)
2). Deployment of multiple (I'd guess you'd need at least 3 or more) carrier strike groups to the Sea of Japan
3). Withdrawal of diplomatic personnel from South Korea
4). Forced evacuation of US expats and tourists from South Korea, probably with some kind of travel ban
5). Military bases placed on security lockdown

Not a single one of these things has happened, and Kim knows what this means: Trump is all bark and no bomb.

Max Hess wrote:

Kim has to make those threats; no one will take him seriously otherwise. If he kept telling us he's no threat to us, we'd jump at the chance to take advantage of his perceived weakness. You know how parks advise people to make themselves look as big and strong as possible when confronted by a predatory animal? Well, Kim's the person and Trump's the mountain lion. And Trump's angry tweets are like poking a Korean tiger with a stick. It doesn't turn out well.

And I don't think the Hitler analogy is a sound one. Kim isn't trying to conquer the world here; once he's got himself a credible and effective nuclear deterrent and his regime is securely entrenched, mission accomplished.

Your acting like Rocket man only started making threats all of a sudden when Trump got in, he's been doing it since Obama's time in office. It doesn't make sense that your only applying the predatory animal in your metaphor to the U.S., when its North Korea that has been making the initial threats to american offshore territories, if anything North Korea is the predator and the U.S. is reacting as the person against the mountain lion.

Actually Kim is potentially much more dangerous then Hitler ever was. The threat of nuclear bombs is much more serious and potentially deadly on a larger scale then threats of territorial expansion. Would you be more worried of a rouge leader that threatens to annihilate your population with nukes, or a nukeless nation that threatens to invade you and has to deal with your own military before they can get to your innocent civilian population?

ceaserkhan22 wrote:Actually Kim is potentially much more dangerous then Hitler ever was. The threat of nuclear bombs is much more serious and potentially deadly on a larger scale then threats of territorial expansion. Would you be more worried of a rouge leader that threatens to annihilate your population with nukes, or a nukeless nation that threatens to invade you and has to deal with your own military before they can get to your innocent civilian population?

The difference between Hitler and Kim is that Hitler occupied and subjugated virtually all of Europe, whereas Kim isn't equipped to initiate offensive action against anyone.

Max Hess wrote:

The difference between Hitler and Kim is that Hitler occupied and subjugated virtually all of Europe, whereas Kim isn't equipped to initiate offensive action against anyone.

Nukes and the 4th largest army in the world isn't "equipped" for offensive action? You didn't answer my question, are you really gonna suggest that the threat of nuclear war is less dangerous then a conventional war of territorial expansion by a nukeless country?

ceaserkhan22 wrote:Nukes and the 4th largest army in the world isn't "equipped" for offensive action? You didn't answer my question, are you really gonna suggest that the threat of nuclear war is less dangerous then a conventional war of territorial expansion by a nukeless country?

To answer your question, I would be a lot more afraid of the Wehrmacht that of the Korean People's Army and their nuclear weapons. But that's not my point. My point was that their nuclear weapons are something to be truly afraid of, but that those weapons are meant to be used as a deterrent to insure the DPRK against foreign attack, not to support any offensive action against North Korea's neighbors. While the KPA is one of the largest military forces in the world by manpower, their training and technology has improved little since the Cold War and they are ill-equipped for a full-scale war. If Kim thought that he had a real chance of successfully turning the Korean War stalemate in the DPRK's favor, he would have attempted to do so by now. Kim Jong-un knows full well that any hostile act on his part would result in his own destruction.

Max Hess wrote:
To answer your question, I would be a lot more afraid of the Wehrmacht that of the Korean People's Army and their nuclear weapons. But that's not my point. My point was that their nuclear weapons are something to be truly afraid of, but that those weapons are meant to be used as a deterrent to insure the DPRK against foreign attack, not to support any offensive action against North Korea's neighbors. While the KPA is one of the largest military forces in the world by manpower, their training and technology has improved little since the Cold War and they are ill-equipped for a full-scale war. If Kim thought that he had a real chance of successfully turning the Korean War stalemate in the DPRK's favor, he would have attempted to do so by now. Kim Jong-un knows full well that any hostile act on his part would result in his own destruction.

Clearly you don't know the history of North Korea, virtually every engagement they have been in was offensive on their part, most notably the Korean War. As for their training, its far more brutal then most western countries. Cold war era Soviet based technology is still plenty sufficient, in fact the most widely used assault rife even today is the AK-47, and its been in service since the 40's, and in many regards superior to the American standard rifle the M-16. Just the fact that North Korea has nuclear capabilities at all puts them militarily ahead of over 95% of countries today. Sometimes you have to get out of your leftist mind set and realize that there are foreign countries more dangerous and detrimental to the world then the U.S., it seems like you want to give more leniency to North Korea even when they have proven to show they deserve less of the benefit of the doubt.

ceaserkhan22 wrote:Clearly you don't know the history of North Korea, virtually every engagement they have been in was offensive on their part, most notably the Korean War. As for their training, its far more brutal then most western countries. Cold war era Soviet based technology is still plenty sufficient, in fact the most widely used assault rife even today is the AK-47, and its been in service since the 40's, and in many regards superior to the American standard rifle the M-16. Just the fact that North Korea has nuclear capabilities at all puts them militarily ahead of over 95% of countries today. Sometimes you have to get out of your leftist mind set and realize that there are foreign countries more dangerous and detrimental to the world then the U.S., it seems like you want to give more leniency to North Korea even when they have proven to show they deserve less of the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not in a "leftist mindset" and I'm not asking to "give more leniency." I'm not saying that the DPRK isn't capable of subduing the ROK on its own. But Kim is smart enough not to attack anyone while the USA is around.
What I said before is that we should try to solve this problem through diplomacy, not aggression, because if threatened, Kim can wreak real havoc on the whole Northeast Asia region.

[quote="Max Hess"]

ceaserkhan22 wrote:I'm not in a "leftist mindset" and I'm not asking to "give more leniency." I'm not saying that the DPRK isn't capable of subduing the ROK on its own. But Kim is smart enough not to attack anyone while the USA is around.
What I said before is that we should try to solve this problem through diplomacy, not aggression, because if threatened, Kim can wreak real havoc on the whole Northeast Asia region.

There's a difference between diplomacy and appeasement, when you say we should "give Kim what he wants" thats appeasement and a show of weakness. Peace isn't always the best option, just ask one of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of starving North Koreans in concentration camps on par with Soviet gulags, i'm sure their really enjoying their "peace" right now under that mad man.

ceaserkhan22 wrote:There's a difference between diplomacy and appeasement, when you say we should "give Kim what he wants" thats appeasement and a show of weakness. Peace isn't always the best option, just ask one of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of starving North Koreans in concentration camps on par with Soviet gulags, i'm sure their really enjoying their "peace" right now under that mad man.

You're obviously not happy with the way things are. I'm not either. None of us are. If you don't like my solution, you're welcome to propose an alternative (which you apparently haven't thought to do yet).

Max Hess wrote:
You're obviously not happy with the way things are. I'm not either. None of us are. If you don't like my solution, you're welcome to propose an alternative (which you apparently haven't thought to do yet).

Yea actually, keep a firm stance on North Korea. When they threaten our territories and our allies show them that we will not stand for it just like how Trump did. Just giving North Korea what they want,  which is what we've done for decades is why they have nukes now.