What Prevents the USA from invading North Korea?

The US doesn't have to strike NK. Japan is going to do it.

posted by deltaboy

posted by donwhite
Bush has given us enemies. The Axis of Evil. Iraq. Iran. North Korea. [Edited by Don W]

Yeah like these countries were America's first enemies under the Bush43 administration. How did these countries became America's enemies? I'm sure it didn't started with the three words Axis of Evil. [Edited by Don]

1. Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. In the 1890s the Germans built a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad. They got concessions along the way in Iraq to drill for oil 20 miles on either side of the RR. Persia wanted a RR too, so they talked to the Germans for a Tehran to Baghdad extension on the same terms. Oil was just coming into prominence as the sea powers - Great Britain, France, Germany, and the US - were converting coal burning dreadnaughts into oil fired behemoths.

After War 1, the British took over in Iraq from the Germans. And also, in Persia. After War 2, the Americans replaced the British oil companies as the drilling agents in Iraq. Saddam’s party, the Ba’athists, overthrew the weak king and ultimately Saddam took power. Saddam was our man in the Middle East until he miscalculated over Kuwait, once a province of the Ottomans under the jurisdiction of Baghdad but not a part of Iraq. Then you know what happened after GW1.

2. Iran. Interesting aside. The Shah of Persia was so impressed by Hitler and his racial superiority theories that he changed the name of Persia to Iran, an anglicized version of the German for Aryan. Iran voted socialist in the only free election ever held, in 1951, and by 1953, President Eisenhower sent in the new CIA - Allen Dulles - Kermit Roosevelt - to replace the Prime Minister with a man more to our liking. The Shah - Peacock Throne - was restored to power and the CIA trained the SAVAK secret police which undertook to torture or kill all the Shah's opponents. The Shah maintained power until the 1979 revolt of the students who took the US Embassy and hostages for 444 days, releasing the hostages on Jan. 20, 1981. October surprise? The US government has “hated” Iran ever since.

It was in response to our actions in Iran that brought the Ayatollah Khomeini out of exile in Paris back to Tehran. What once looked to be a trivial mistake - backing the Shah - has had long term consequences and is having more today. Lesson? Look before you leap! Khomeini established the Islamic Republic we are still facing today. 60% of Iranians polled by Pew look with favor on the United States but none like the intrusive actions by the Government of the US.

3. North Korea. The Japanese conquered the Kingdom of Cho-sun in 1910. The Japanese treated the Koreans pitifully. The USSR declared war on Japan on August 10, 1945, a treaty of neutrality having existed between them. The Japanese surrendered August 15, 1945, and signed the papers on the USS Missouri on Sept. 2, 1945, in Tokyo Bay. The Russians got the north half of Korea to administer. We got the south half. The north half had about 50% more area but only about 30% the number of people. The south half had the most potential.

The Russians had walked out of the UN over some issue - they did it often - and on June 25, 1950, when the North Koreans invaded the South of Korea, the Russians were gone. The Security Council was able to pass a number of resolutions including one putting the US in charge of the UN action to halt the violations of the UN Charter by North Korea.

By November, 1950, the North Koreans had pushed us back to the Pusan Perimeter in the deep south of Korea. By a surprising and very well planned and executed maneuver, landed at Inchon, the harbor city for Seoul. MacArthur cut the over extended North Korean's supply line and drove straight for P’yongyang, the capital of North Korea. In only a few weeks the North Korean Army collapsed.

China, flush from its 1949 victory over the Nationalist forces of Chiang Kia-chek who fled to Taiwan, warned the United States not to get closer than 20 miles to the border at the Yalu River. We ignored it. In fact, it is claimed MacArthur did so purposely hoping to bring the Chinese into the war and then to “nuke” them. Harry Truman did not want to do that and so, he fired MacArthur. We still have no diplomatic relations with North Korea - we do with Vietnam - and we have isolated North Korea like we have isolated Cuba. We're mean spirited. If Cuba or NK had oil, it would be different.

North Korea is a “client” state of China. But the Chinese still recall we support Taiwan. Which China regards as an internal matter. And will truck no outsider interference. When the time comes. In the meantime China is not going to make our Korean “bed” any easier to lay in.

And that’s the story, DB, my version. The short version.



[edit on 7/10/2006 by donwhite]

So you finally did you research and you can pretty much retract your statement where you say Bush made them as America's enemies.

Originally posted by Relentless
Hello? Didn't their missle test fail miserably? How are they a threat to us?

I wouldn't assume that just because one of their missile tests failed they are no longer a threat to us. To see it as the U.S. and Japan do, think that they were only performing those tests to see what was wrong with them and what needed to be fixed. They could of improved the errors in the original missile by now, after gathering information from the failed launch. BTW, wasn't their second launch of the Taepaedong-2 successful?


And either way, the threat doesn't have to be DIRECT. Can you imagine the kind of world reaction if U.S. military forces invaded North Korea without 'permission' of the UN, and in return, NK attacked Japan with the nuclear weapons and said, "HEY LOOK WHAT THE U.S. DID." Kind of get what I was trying to get across there?

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Omniscient]

All three - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - were under "control" before Bush43 mucked it up.

B43 gets full credit - actually blame - for the messy world of 2006. He cannot blame today’s mess on Clinton or on his father or on Ronnie Reagan. Or on God.

Bush43 is responsible. Solely. But not accountable.



[edit on 7/10/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
All three - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - were "under" control before Bush43 mucked it up.

He gets full credit for the messy world of 2006. He cannot blame today’s mess on Clinton or on his father or on Ronnie Reagan. Or on God. He is responsible. But not accountable.

Under control? Then what Clinton did against Iraq back in 98 was pretty much usual self restraint and under control eh? Let things flow naturally. Not to mention North Korea launching a missile in 98...hmmm I guess Clinton made an enemy there as well.

What Prevents the USA from invading North Korea?

That's the 64,000$ question.

The author of this thread, with all due respect, belongs in Bush's white house if you are implying "why dont we"?!

Seriously, what right would we have? The same right we had when we invaded Iraq?

posted by deltaboy

Under control? Then what Clinton did against Iraq back in 98 was pretty much usual self restraint and under control eh? Not to mention North Korea launching a missile in 98...hmmm I guess Clinton made an enemy there as well.

OK, I give up. What did Clinton do in Iraq in 1998? How does that go to the March 18, 2003, Bush43 preemptive strike in Iraq? On the false premise of WMDs. Where is Clinton in this?

Or Bush43 jumping around on the Lincoln deck on May 1, 2003, yelling “Mission Accomplished?” How is Clinton related to that?

And what has the NK launching a Scud missile in 1998 got to do with anything in 2006? Can you possibly relate that to Bush43 in 2006. Or worse, to Bill Clinton?

Surely you are aware we are now on Bush43's watch? And have been since Jan. 20, 2001. And regret on regret, we will be on Bush43 watch until Jan. 20, 2009.

Why are you so mad at us God? I must tell you God, you are sorely testing my faith!


[edit on 7/10/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite


OK, I give up. What did Clinton do in Iraq in 1998? How does that go to the March 18, 2003, Bush43 preemptive strike in Iraq? On the false premise of WMDs. Where is Clinton in this?

en.wikipedia.org...

Operation Desert Fox was the military codename for a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

It was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

President Clinton announced a new policy toward Iraq of "regime change." On October 31, 1998 the president signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act." [1] [2] The new Act appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy. However, Clinton never seriously intended to enforce the "regime change" portion of the act.

The Act also said that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces," except in direct aid to an active Iraqi rebellion.

Sounds familiar. Bombing the crap out of Iraq. Of course Clinton took it more "civilized" approach then what Bush did.


[edit on 10-7-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit on 10-7-2006 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by bodrul
they have nukes

Bingo

Off base, D-Boy. Nothing here to do with the Bush43 mucking up the World. Bush43 started the war in Iraq on his own, and falsely, and did not have either good planning or a post Baghdad plan; except VP Cheney and the Oberfuhrer (Rumsfeld) who expected to ride as liberators in open limos showered with roses and etc. Now, D-Boy we’re in ‘06, 3 years on, no end in sight, 2,600 KIA GIs - death of others is nothing new to Bush43 - and Bush43 has to slip into Iraq in the darkenss of night and worse, in secret - he can’t even tell the Iraqis he’s coming - and then Bush43 has to rush to get out of Baghdad before the insurgents can get good aim on him. What's Bush43 say? Stay the course! And he calls that progress?


Makes you proud, huh? Not me. I'm embarassed.



[edit on 7/11/2006 by donwhite]

What a shame my 11 year old nephew came to me and asked me if we were all going to die from a nuke strike. :shk: What a time to grow up in!

The snooze alarm. The snooze alarm keeps most things that aren't done from being done. If we'd just wake up the first time we'd have 5 more minutes in our day... just enough time to push the little red button. It's been on our to-do list since 1951, but in 1953 when we still hadn't managed to wake up in time to nuke Korea we just signed the armistice and decided to nuke them during peacetime, but 53 years later we're still procrastinating.

Actually it's not that we couldn't, it's just that the benefits to match the costs.

Skilled planning and flawless execution could give us complete control of North Korea at a cost that dramatically undercuts conventional projections, but even at a wholesale price, North Korea isn't worth buying.

I think a creative plan of attack could give us North Korea with American casualties in the 4 digit range and damage to the South limited to what Korea can do with conventionally armed short-range missiles that our airforce doesn't take out in the first few sortees.

I'd tell you my idea but you'd think I was insane. It's not, though I admit it's the kind of logistical nightmare that would make Wellington cringe.

But even if you could do that, why start a war? Why tick off China? Why enter a scenario where if something goes wrong you'll have to use nukes preemptively?

Their communists? Nope, we already used that excuse for Vietnam- nobody will go for it again.

They've got WMD? Oops, already used that one too, and besides they've had their WMD for a few years now and haven't done spit with it- why rock the boat?

The people are suffering? OK, I happen to think that's a legit reason to do SOMETHING, but where I come from "putting someone out of their misery" is generally a last resort. It's better to try and help them. I'll reconsider that position the day someone finds a way to bomb a famine out of existence. But besides that, if we're gonna go play world police in North Korea, then we've gotta go clean up a lot of other rough places too, like Somalia, Darfur, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chicago, New Orleans... oops, looks like we'd better bomb a few of our own cities out of their misery before we start with Korea.


Something HAS to be done about Korea, there's not a question about that in my mind. I'm just not sure that war is the best answer. War would work, but it wouldn't work best, and given that we really dont gain anything in terms of security, strategy, diplomacy, or even money by attacking North Korea, it really seems unlikely that we'd undertake the risks.

posted by The Vagabond

“ . . Something HAS to be done about Korea, there's not a question about that in my mind. I'm just not sure that war is the best answer. War would work, but it wouldn't work best, and given that we really don’t gain anything in terms of security, strategy, diplomacy, or even money by attacking North Korea, it really seems unlikely that we'd undertake the risks. Why tick off China? They’re communists? [Edited by Don W]

Korea. Formerly the Kingdom of Chosen or Cho-sun. Partitioned at the 38th parallel in 1945 by the USSR and the USA. 60-40 in land, in favor of the North. 70-30 in people, in favor of the South. China was engaged in its civil war until 1949. By November 1950, China was able to send 500,000 soldiers into North Korea. The Chinese stopped at what is now the DMZ. In 1953 an armistice was entered into.

China is the 800 pound gorilla in this neighborhood. Russia is out of the picture. The Russo-Korean shared border is very short. 10-12 miles. And of no practical consequence. Japan is far enough away to let Korea both North and South remain on its back burners. In fact, South Korea's commerce is of much more concern to Japan because it is a successful competitor. Soon they will be selling more Kia and Hyundai cars in Tokyo than do Suzuki or Mitsubishi.

Only the US remains as a party-in-interest vis a vis North Korea. Has anyone explained why a country 9,000 miles away and with which we have less dealings than we have with Cuba is still on our radar screen? Does the US still envision itself as an Asian Power rather than as a Pacific Power? Heaven forbid. You suggest “ . . something HAS to be done about Korea . . “ but are not certain what it is to be done. War - security - strategy - diplomacy - money.

War? No. You pointed out war was not a sensible option. Security? It figures in but it’s not clear how. Strategy? No. We can’t bargain North Korea with China. Diplomacy? Yes. But we don’t know how or are afraid to do it one on one. Money? Yes. But we are too extended to do more than talk about it.

Maybe someone will find a way we have not mentioned.



[edit on 7/12/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by zerotime

The US doesn't have to strike NK. Japan is going to do it.

Simply put but very true. If Japan ever goes to war its under the U.S. authority and if the U.S. wants NK dealt with, were too tied down in the middle east to go for it so it would be Japans job and all the countries know better than to interfere with it.

Don I'm given the impression that you have misunderstood my post. I appreciate the detail but I've still got my notes from history and international relations so we are already on the same page regarding the historical/geopolitical backdrop.

Originally posted by donwhite
China is the 800 pound gorilla in this neighborhood.

Incidentally 800 pounds would account for 2 gorillas, which is appropriate since China weighs twice as much as most regional gorillas, but more to the point, China's weight is not necessarily confined to that region.

That is probably the primary selfish reason for taking an interest in North Korea. When you're sleeping with someone, every once in a while you have to do something with them that you wouldn't have any interest in doing on your own, or the relationship sours and you stop getting laid. Since China is a multi-billion dollar lay for America, we'd do well to start a tradition of being able to get along and accomplish things together.

The ability of the USA and USSR to put a stop to the Suez War, though it by no means ended the cold war, was important to establishing a sense of the "rules" of the Cold War, specifically that the US was willing to give Soviet client states a break in the name of the status quo. This was probably not lost upon the Soviets and may explain why they believed us when we struck a bargain to leave Cuba alone if the missiles came out. Would that deal have been possible if we'd cheered the British and French on and let Egypt get stepped on for so much as looking at the Soviets?

In so many words, North Korea should be dealt with in cooperation with China not for the sake of anything germaine to that situation itself, but because it sets the right tone for the relationship the US and China will be forced to live with as China continues to ascend as a global power.

You suggest “ . . something HAS to be done about Korea . . “ but are not certain what it is to be done. War - security - strategy - diplomacy - money.

This appears to be where you misunderstood me. You have taken my mention of these things as a list of potential means which I am uncertain of. That is not the case. War on North Korea, which happens to be the topic of this thread, is the means I was evaluating. My conclusion is that it is not a sound means. The other items in your list are the possible ends of a war in North Korea. I found that none of them were sufficient to justify the means.


There are however two ends which we should be inclined to seek, and we must work hard to find a means which will gain them for us. Those ends are, first, the afforementioned "bonding experience" with China, and second, fulfilling our ideological inclination to promote the freedom and welfare of humanity, since poverty and authoritarianism are two common contributors to the beginning of wars.

The means will no doubt involve providing China with a combination of positive and negative economic/diplomatic incentives in order to have them exercise their more substantial ability to bring peaceful pressure to bear upon North Korea.

I notice that you seem to believe we are unwise to reject 1-on-1 diplomacy with North Korea, however I believe nothing good could come of such talks. The reason is that America has very few peaceful negative incentives to bring to bear on North Korea. This reduces us to essentially paying a ransom and having absolutely no peaceful insurance of our investment. We've been down that road.

If we try to go down it again and this time deter North Korea from violating the agreement, our only effective negative incentive is force, and as we've already discussed, we'd have to be bluffing because there simply is not sufficient justification for the use of force. So 1-on-1 diplomacy with North Korea means giving them money, and threatening to kill them. They'll continue to build a deterrent because we threatened them, and we won't make good on our threat. In their eyes, we'll be France.

On the other hand, if we hammer something out with China and go to them for a trilateral agreement, we can offer them both the incentives and the peaceful disincentives we need to, and what's more they haven't got much of a choice because the 800 pound gorilla is at the table saying that if you want to keep hiding behind us, you've got to follow us down this path.

posted by The Vagabond

Incidentally 800 pounds would account for 2 gorillas, which is appropriate since China weighs twice as much as most regional gorillas . . [Edited by Don W]

A good story oft retold gets better with each retelling. I’ll settle for 400 pound gorillas. Aside: one of those pork earmarks was a $15 million grant to the Louisville Zoo to finish its $20 million gorilla exhibit. I’m from Louisville. I have not been back to see it, but I do plan on that soon. Keeping gorillas is nearly as costly as keeping pandas.

“ . . but more to the point, China's weight is not necessarily confined to that region. That is probably the primary reason for taking an interest in North Korea. Since China is a multi-billion dollar lay for America, we'd do well to start a tradition of being able to get along and accomplish things together. [Edited by donwhite]

Our Treasury insists the Chinese float the yuan which would raise prices of Chinese goods at Wal-Mart 15%-20% off the bat. Maybe more. Why does our government care if China wants to subsidize American consumers?

The ability of the USA and USSR to put a stop to the Suez War, though it by no means ended the cold war, was important to establishing a sense of the "rules" of the Cold War, specifically that the US was willing to give Soviet client states a break in the name of the status quo.

OK, re-run this with me. Truman promises Nasser to help build the Aswan High Dam. Eisenhower withdraws the promise. Nasser seizes the Suez to get revenue to build the dam. Britain and France parachute in to re-take the Canal. Israel joins. Eisenhower “asks” the triple alliance to get out. They do. The USSR offers Nasser aid and ultimately builds the High Dam. Nasser and Syria combine to form the UAR, and Syria becomes a client state of the USSR also. The US helps resolve the Yom Kippur War and reestablishes itself as the patron of Egypt as well as Israel. Correct any errors please.

This was probably not lost upon the Soviets and may explain why they believed us when we struck a bargain to leave Cuba alone if the missiles came out. Would that deal have been possible if we'd cheered the British and French on and let Egypt get stepped on for so much as looking at the Soviets?

We also traded the withdrawal of 22 Jupiter liquid fueled ICBMs in Turkey for peace in Cuba - and South Florida. But yes, that went far in facilitating the 1962 Crisis settlement.

In so many words, North Korea should be dealt with in cooperation with China not for the sake of anything germane to that situation itself, but because it sets the right tone for the relationship the US and China will be forced to live with as China continues to ascend as a global power. [Edited by donwhite]

I don’t know. Our present administration does not seem overly interested in establishing any good bi-lateral relations with any country. They smile today but after November 7, it will be back to business as usual. As our pre-condition to Iran, give up your enrichment then we’ll sit down with you. If Iran gives up its enrichment, what is there to sit down for? Same as in North Korea. If they will do what we want, then we’ll sit down. Where do they teach that method of negotiating? At the Ken Lay School of Business Admin? I cannot take our side seriously when the start that way.

You have taken my list of potential means which I am uncertain of . . are the possible ends of a war in North Korea. I found none were sufficient to justify the means. There are two ends we should seek, and must work to find a means which will gain them for us. Those ends are, first, the aforementioned "bonding experience" with China, and second, fulfilling our ideological inclination to promote the freedom and welfare of humanity, since poverty and authoritarianism are two common contributors to the beginning of wars.

I do not see the US ever “bonding” with China as we are bonded with the UK. Or even France. China does no need our bond. China is self assured and self reliant. And mostly self sufficient. They know we will only use them as long as it meets our own bottom line perspective. We have a very short range view of our own interests. China is getting a lesson on American bi-literalism at the G8 vis a vis Putin and Russia. I have come to the conclusion a good government can also be authoritarian. People prefer stability and security to whatever it is we are hawking around the world as democracy.

I notice you seem to believe we are unwise to reject 1-on-1 diplomacy with North Korea, however I believe nothing good could come of such talks. The reason is that America has very few peaceful negative incentive bring to bear on North Korea. This reduces us to essentially paying a ransom and having absolutely no peaceful insurance of our investment. We've been down that road.

Well, you’re right in part. We are still locked in at 1953 with North Korea. The North Koreans regard our 36,000 soldiers in South Korea as provocative. I think the 2 Koreas will unite.
Sooner than later. In the meantime, the North needs a lot of economic aid - say money - to improve the conditions of their country. I think the current administration is pushing the 6 party over the 1 on 1 talks to muddy the waters. We are overlooking the important substantive elements for form or procedure. That is not smart. It is obstinate. OK for the school yard but not for international politics. I’ll bet you SK, Japan, China, Russia all wish they had never heard of Six Parties.

If we try to go down it again and this time deter North Korea from violating the agreement, our only effective negative incentive is force, and as we've already discussed, we'd have to be bluffing because there simply is not sufficient justification for the use of force.

First off, I heard NK had voluntarily imposed a moratorium on missile testing. There was no “agreement” not to test. That is important. Was then an agreement? Or a self imposed moratorium?

Second, we don’t need to flaunt our superior firepower. It may well impress us, but it has not impressed the Afghan, nor the Iraqi, nor the Iranians nor the NK. So who is impressed? The American electorate. Perhaps most of this hoopla is aimed at November 7 and is not serious?

They'll continue to build a deterrent because we threatened them, and we won't make good on our threat. In their eyes, we'll be France.

Exactly. Anyone who can do it in the world is going to add nuclear weapons to its arsenal as the only sure deterrent to preemption by the United States. That policy is coming home to haunt us. If A-Bombs are good for one country, then they must be good for another. If we mean to disarm, then let us disarm. Otherwise, let us stop talking about it. I’m for near total disarmament. Like maybe keeping about 300, as we think Israel has.

On the other hand, if we hammer something out with China and go to them for a trilateral agreement, we can offer them both the incentives and the peaceful disincentives we need to, and what's more they haven't got much of a choice because the 800 pound gorilla is at the table saying that if you want to keep hiding behind us, you've got to follow us down this path.

All well and good but for one thing. Taiwan. Why do you think China is going to make our job easier. Is the US asserting itself as a Asian power or will it admit it is only a Pacific power. China will consent to us being a Pacific power but not to us claiming to be an Asian power. And China will resolve Taiwan in due time. Their way, I predict.

North Korean Technology, that's a bit of an oxymoron...They have no industy in North Korea. They use what they can extort or buy from their neighboring countries. They do get a great deal of tech from China and Russia as well, but that does not make them advanced as far as technology goes. Their missle testing was a joke, although i admit, if you give a blind man a gun, eventually he will shoot somebody. It is my hope that the international community will not wait long enough for that to occur.
China and Russia as well are walking on egg shells with this deal, they have supplied the North koreans with just enough nuclear weapondry to bite themselves in the Butt. Lets not forget exactly who are the closest two countries in that region, not counting South Korea. The real reason we won't be invading North Korea is rather simple.

Reason #1- We've been there, and done that. It was less than a rousing success the first time and if at all possible, we need to avoid that mistake, the geography and local sentiment there would in many way's be worse than what we are dealing with in the middle east, which brings me to....

Reason #2- Our forces are stretched thin as it is, between Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran, we really don't have the resources to fight on four fronts at the same time, and our foreign policy's have insured that we will only recieve soo much aid from organizations like the U.N. At least if we are forced to carry our middle eastern campaign much longer. Last but not least I give you....


Reason #3- At the end of the Korean War there was a half hearted treaty put in place to ensure that the peace was kept. Soo, unless Kim Jong ILL actually physically walks across the de militarized zone waiving the bird at the soldiers who are stationed there, it won't happen. I would be of the mind to think that fireing a long range missle in our direction would be the same thing fundimentally, but please see reason's # 1 and # 2 for the reasons it was not treated with the same sort of response that we might think would be warrented.Text NavyText BlueTextText

North Korea is like having a stye in your eye. You know it is there and will cause you discomfort if when you blink sometimes or if you are reading a lot and your eyes get strained a bit.

This is how Korea is to the US. They are persistant, rubbing us the wrong way on purpose to provoke a reaction. Why though? What good does it really do them in the scheme of things? Maybe they want us to bomb them and then rebuild their country like we did for Japan? Like we are doing for Iraq? Or is it deeper than that? Do they just want to rise out of obscurity and be noticed above the rabble of other countries?

I think we don't invade them for three reasons:

1. They are trying to provoke us to for whatever reasons they have, either political or monetary.

2. China has far too many interests in NK and too large of an infantry

3. It just may ignite WW3 and nobody wants to see that.

Originally posted by donwhite
Keeping gorillas is nearly as costly as keeping pandas.

I love a good punn.

OK, re-run this with me.

Not much correction needed. We "asked" our buddies to get out by grabbing their economic testes and glaring at them of course. And "resolved the Yom Kippur War" would have to be Latin for made Israel promise not to destroy the Egyptian 3rd Army, then went to DEFCON-3 the minute the USSR wanted a say in the matter, but the last part is really besides the point.

Exactly what you described is the beauty of engagement activities like working with the Chinese on North Korea.
Sure, we could have double-dog dared the Soviets to make good on their promise to go to war over the Suez, and hindsight being 20/20 of course, they would have backed down (just as they backed down from their desire for involvement when we went to Defcon-3 during the ceasefire of the Yom Kippur War, so we would have achieved 1973 by 1956, but then they would have had no reason to trust us in '62, and we wouldn't have been able to save face by keeping the missile tradeoff secret or getting them out of Cuba with only a promise.

But as I said before, we'd already proved that we liked the status quo and were willing to brow-beat our friends to preserve it, so in 1962 things panned out.

I cannot take our side seriously when the start that way.

You're right, but why do you think we do that? We've got nothing to sit down with. The only thing we have that Iran or North Korea wants from us and can't get elsewhere is the promise not to beat the snot out of them. We've got no cards so we refuse to sit down at the table until they give us all of the aces.

The way I see it, the way to avoid that impasse is to get our aces from China so that we can sit down at the table while there's still something to sit down about. What's more, every time we do that, we gain something else that we can sit down with in the future: credibility.

I do not see the US ever “bonding” with China as we are bonded with the UK. Or even France. China does no need our bond.

They do, they just don't know it yet. We on the other hand are in a position to know full well that we're gonna need to bond with them, because we're the reigning champs on the global chess board and we've apparently decided not to retire after the cold war.

China's gonna need a friendly America to survive, and America's gonna need a China that won't get scared and take a swing when we try to strongarm them, so America's going to be looking to acquaint China with the rules of the Cold War game while China will probably do what they usually do when attacked by barbarians- let us in and give us decaf tea and opium until we mellow out.

It won't be the kind of bond we had with the UK or France because there is a certain sense of belonging when you're among your fellow thieves, but I suspect it'll be that uneasy friendship you have with the neighbor you hate while you're both waiting for eachother to die so that you can move the fence over a few feet before a new owner gets in there.

I think the current administration is pushing the 6 party over the 1 on 1 talks to muddy the waters.

Standard proceedure per the anti-communist handbook. You ignore them until they die and just hope their country miraculously disappears from the map when their leader dies. Sometimes it takes a while. Whoever would have thought that Fidel Castro was so hardy?
We probably are holding out for all the wrong reasons. I suspect Bush thinks that if we can just ignore them until Kim dies that there'll be a power vacuum and that reconciliation will just happen then.

I think we've done the wrong thing by being too stuck to one way. We could give them head to head talks if we engaged in a little shuttle diplomacy- talk to China, go talk to North Korea, take a break, call China, etc. We need outside help but we don't necessarily need somebody holding our hand while we talk to the mean, scarry North Koreans.

First off, I heard NK had voluntarily imposed a moratorium on missile testing. There was no “agreement” not to test. That is important. Was then an agreement? Or a self imposed moratorium?

The missile moratorium was self-imposed. The efforts to keep them from developing anything worth putting on a missile to begin with were not. We cut a deal to give them enegy if they'd stop pursuing the nukes, and they went ahead with a parallel program to skirt the agreement.

Second, we don’t need to flaunt our superior firepower.

Um, I didn't know there was any disagreement over this between us.

All well and good but for one thing. Taiwan.

So we're going to keep our Korea policy in 1953 just because we haven't revisited our Taiwan policy since 1950? If Bush is reading I'd like to let him in on a little secret; the ROC's chances ran out in 1949. In retrospect, maybe we should have done something about it sooner but that's life now.

One cold war is as good as another; let's divie up the world with them same as we always do with a rival. We leave Taiwan to its own devices, since nobody can seriously think that we're going to slug it out with the Chinese over Taiwan anyway, and in return they take their missiles away from Fidel Mk.II over there so that we don't have to worry about unbalanced puppets coming off the strings and starting a nuclear war.

Then we're reluctant friends and we've established a commitment to not throwing any low blows in this fight, and we proceed with our little cold war until one side or the other has been economically castrated. I suppose it ain't perfect but at least nobody gets nuked; trade Taiwan for NK and you're preventing two nuclear wars for the price of one.