U.S. Response To N.K. bomb Test

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Imagine what happens if we do just walk away from this. Freeze the assets in the U.S. Boot out their diplomats, and deny them any form of interaction with out bureaucracy. Suppose we just ignore them?

Simply put, you just cant. Iran is besieged by the US and many other countries supporting their opinion because of suspicions of them developing such weapons while now North Korea does actually have them. I suspect the international community will just cower, hence why they said any military campaign against NK is a "nightmare scenario". On the other hand, they cant let NK get on with their developments, because if they would, it would destroy all those years of diplomatic pressure on Iran, and all the effort done to de-motivate them of building nukes. If NK goes on, everyone will blame the US for "Forgetting the real culprit" and "Letting the real danger" slip away.

Then the other options...

A) Sanctions only adds more anger and frustration to NK.

B) Blockades will result into conflict.

The world is now plunged into a situation where a rogue nation armed with nukes actually exists, the threats made against Iran are now irrelevant, they know that if NK gets away with it and just gets sanctions imposed against them, but no military harm will be done, they will be able to build them themselves. I know why people fear for a domino-effect, everyone willing to get their own arsenal. Nice way to secure the peace, jeez.

Soooo... Where does it end?

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Mammoth]

The blockade is necessary because we must look like we're doing "something." The consequences of doing nothing far out-weigh the difficulties of doing whatever it takes to be seen as active and engaged.

OK...

What exactly are the consequences of doing nothing?

Read your Sun Tzu, sometimes inaction is the best action.

NK is behaving provocatively: IE trying to provoke a response.

Why give them what they want?

Originally posted by xmotex
What exactly are the consequences of doing nothing?

Read this and of course there is still this pestering situation. This is one of those cases that everyone watches.

Originally posted by xmotex
NK is behaving provocatively: IE trying to provoke a response.

Why give them what they want?

We're not, they want bilateral talks with the US, that is not happening, they do not want sanctions, we helped imposed sanctions, they do not want the sanctions to be enforced, we will enforce the sanctions. They key is not doing nothing but not doing anything which North Korea wants.

The magnitude of the deprivation and hardship being unnecessarily endured by the North Koreans is hard to understand. South Koreas successful economy and the relative satisfaction and happiness of its citizens shows conclusively that North Korea can do likewise.

In my opinion, reunification of Korea needs to be achieved at the earliest possible date. The ordinary peoples of the countries want this to happen and the government of South Korea is willing to let it go forward in spite of the horrendous burden it would place on South Korea. The North Korean government is obviously opposed to the entire concept of reunification--unless of course they end up in charge. China could greatly assist in the reunification effort if they decided to back it. However, what's in it for China? Until some scheme emerges that protects chinese interests and makes reunification seem an attractive proposition, I don't see it happening short of an armed conflict.

My message to the U.S. (and other) governments of the West would be to find some way to expedite reunification.

The price of doing nothing isthat we risk condemnation for "allowing" a known hostile regime to do something that resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

Suppose North Korea decides to sell nuclear capability to a terrorist group which then uses said WMD? If the United States were clearly seen as having done nothing at all which may have had some chance of stopping the transfer or the act itself....

Take your pick Justin, the price of doing something unilaterally is that we risk condemnation for doing so before some catastrophic event happens. That's why Presidents come out of office looking old and haggard after only two terms or less.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Astronomer70]

As a political scientist, I would choose to do something...anything...rather than nothing at all. 90% of politics is perception. It's always better to be in a position to defend what you did insted of what you didn't do.

Perhaps so Justin, but one of the hard lessons I had to learn as manager of people was to mostly do nothing when they came in to complain, chat, or whatnot. The biggest part of the time things tended to take care of themselves.

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Perhaps so Justin, but one of the hard lessons I had to learn as manager of people was to mostly do nothing when they came in to complain, chat, or whatnot. The biggest part of the time things tended to take care of themselves.

Can you honestly predict the future decisions of a un-predictable nation like North Korea? This isnt like solving an arguement at work, this involves nukes.... I'm sure you as a manager did not had to deal with such things.

My point in the last post of mine and Justin's, is that you just cannot go and let NK do their thing, it would make the US look like a bully! Example?

"Mr. President, we have heard that your decision of not choosing for pressure on NK has met alot of resistance, have you thought that the resistance is because of the fact that the Bush administration has been hammering on a Iran with no nukes since years ago, and that you now let a real nation with such weapons slip away? Maybe its because that you paid attention to the wrong country? Is in-action against NK justified now that your fears have become a reality?"

Honestly, can you escape action against NK? What would happen if you do nothing? The risk is described above, you lose status.

Ironic, it seems like NK has the US in a checkmate, inaction is bad for the international community, and so is action... Depending on how NK reacts on more sanctions and pressure once it detonates more nukes.

I have some leadershp experience of my onw, and I've learned that half of the job is providing a good example. That usually means providing very public proof that checks and balances are in play. If the employees do good, you say so and stay out of their way. When they do bad, you say so while providing as much guidance as necessary in the presence of others.

Thre is a time and a place to be seen doing nothing. In the case of North Korea, we must be seen to be doing something that addresses the issue at hand. If we do not, we will risk similar behavior from otehr regimes. We've passed the point hwere we can ask North Korea to step in to our office. There is nothing we could say t otehm behind closed doors that would change their minds.

An active and visible naval blockade won't really stop North Korea from smuggling their stuff over land, but that will require the assistane of China. When they are caught, the Chinese will be forced in to the position of having to answer for their own bad behavior. If we don't undertake this small measure of vigilence, we will signal to our friends and enemies alike that we can be counted on be slack again in the future.

Yep, we need to appear to be forcing 'our' way here.
and quite rightly so.
doing nothing just sends out the message we dont have the stomach to stand up for this..

I dont think we do, nessecarily... have the stomach to fight Nkorea over simply having these weapons...

But what if they set off more nuclear devices?
Will we upgrade our current status toward them?
or we will spout the same lines, and just promote the already limiited response..

China dont seem prepared to take any action of any type.
We pretty much had to force them to take these minimal steps..

you dont need to 'force' a country to do something, if they supposidly AGREE with it.

While kims not dumb enough to take the first shot at another country..
he's definately content making the US appear weak and stupid, until the day he dies, because he knows there are other countries out there that will benefit from the US's apparent weakness, and that the US will slowly degrade due to it.

We probably cant even knock the lil b@stard off either, it'll just enrage the population that adore their 'dear leader'

For the second time in this administrations history, they have put them self in an 'unwinnable' position...

Foriegn relations as a form of Politics is all about image. Li'l Kim needs to look like he's holding back the world, and we need to look like we're holding him back. That's really the nugget of the thing. Sad to say, but both sides can get what they want in this case.

The political strategist in me says that we don't have to do anything else if Kim sets off a second bomb. As long as we follow through with a visible blockade, we'll get what we want out of this. My only concern at this point is that Secretary Rice is over in Asia just now, possily telegraphing to the Japanese that we will NOT blackade North Korea until some time next year.

We're not going to blockade or do anything of the sort - any sort of military action against NK is likely to trigger a war, even something as limited as a blockade. For all the talk about the threat of NK delivering a nuke to a terrorist group, such a scenario is extremely unlikely - NK simply has little to gain from such an attack.

And I think Americans, overawed by our military power, have little idea of the kind of casualties a war with the North Koreans is likely to entail. For an article that gives a rather sobering view of what such a conflict would cost (and why Clinton adopted the chose the addmittedly shaky framework agreement over confrontation), click here

Bill Clinton and William Perry, his Defense secretary, considered going to war against Pyongyang in 1994. On May 19 of that year, Perry, along with the then Joint Chiefs chairman, John Shalikashvili, and the commander of U.S. forces in South Korea at the time, Gen. Gary Luck, briefed the president on the anticipated costs of such a war: roughly 52,000 U.S. military killed or wounded; 490,000 South Korean military ditto, and untold numbers of Northern dead and civilian casualties, all in the first 90 days of conflict—together with a U.S. price tag of more than $61 billion. Luck later calculated the ultimate toll at more than 1 million dead, possibly including as many as 100,000 Americans, and a final bill to U.S. taxpayers in excess of $100 billion—not to mention more than $1 trillion in damage to South Korea’s economy.

Look at the political firestorm over a war in Iraq that has claimed less than 3,000 US soldiers' lives. Now think about what would happen if we triggered a conflict that cost thirty times that many, in three months instead of three years. Absolutely nobody wants a war with North Korea.

[edit on 10/20/06 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
Look at the political firestorm over a war in Iraq that has claimed less than 3,000 US soldiers' lives. Now think about what would happen if we triggered a conflict that cost thirty times that many, in three months instead of three years. Absolutely nobody wants a war with North Korea.

I think that President Bush has lost his desire to confront Nork Korea in the last 48 hours. Even if I do think it's time to do "something," I no longer think it will happen. Rice's mission to Asia makes that clear. Additionally, I think the President nowh as his hands full with troubles at home.

The Military Commissions Act is going over like a lead balloon. This and other events here at home have made it unlikely that the Bush administration will do anything [new] of a military nature for the rest of his term. Even if the DPRK sets off another bomb, we won't see any new actions taken against them. We should expect U.N. sanctions against them to fall apart before they ever get started.