Does trigger happiness return?

[Nik]

There were times when restraint and non-intervention were viewed as the best option even when dealing with radical, belligerent regimes..
Now we might be witnessing of the reversal. Build-up around N. Korea, as well as multiple players prone to jump the gun, make conflagrations likelier than before.
Not saying avoidance is always best especially in the face of clear menace, however rapid escalation may also be a little scary.
What do you think? And what's the best approach towards N.Korea?

[Ian]

I don't know that there is a good approach to North Korea because we have no idea what its objectives are. Technically, it is still at war with Sth Korea -all we have is a cease-fire. The government seems to be the last hold-out of stalinism, and that makes it really difficult to deal with because the upper power holders there almost certainly think everyone else is trying to get them to change their system. No matter what anyone else does, they will think the same. The good news is, as far as I can see, they have no interest in terrorism, and I think that if everyone else can persuade them they will leave them alone, North Korea will leave everyone else alone. So one strategy that has a fair chance of working is to leave them alone.

The fact of the matter is, for all its bluster, it is a small country and has no chance against the US. If it starts a war, it will be turned into ash. Its problem is, it cannot guarantee someone else won't start a war against it. Also, I think that unless you ar prepare dot go the whole way to war, you can't stop what they are doing, so my guess is, avoidance is the best option. I can't see any future where that would be worse than what Trump seems to be threatening right now.

[J.N.]

It's time to party like it's 1999 'cause it's the end of the world as we know it yet nobody's feeling fine just yet. Perhaps it's because everybody's down because a weapon un-used is a useless weapon. Plus, radioactive glass does not make shiny, happy people either, and it's a poor resource for party jewelry.

However, as a testament to my geekiness, I clicked on the topic thinking it was about SQL triggers. (And yes, many folks are indeed very SQL trigger happy!)

[Graeme]

Hi Ian,

Perhaps I should emigrate to Invercargill.

[Ian]

Hi Graeme,

For what it is worth, houses are cheap in Invercargill. Oops - maybe not if enough read that!

[Graeme]

I suspect the climate in Invercargill would be conducive to writing. Nice & cold.

[Ian]

You might well be right.

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "The good news is, as far as I can see, they have no interest in terrorism, and I think that if everyone else can persuade them they will leave them alone, North Korea will leave everyone else alone...."

One question is whether the above premise is verifiable, since the rationality and benevolence of N. Korea leadership might be questioned (but then the same is often asked about many others).
The second question is about the nukes and ballistics. Can they ask: "who are you, US, China, Russia to tell us whether we can have the nukes or not? You all have them, we want too. It's our right and we don't need to ask anyone" Or not so much?

[Ian]

I would not accuse Nth Korea of benevolence, but that in itself is not an excuse to exterminate them. Your second question is more to the point. If they signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it is not their right, but I don't think they did sign. The US has a habit of declaring war technology that they developed but now don't particularly want to use as "criminal".

[Graeme]

I think that the N.Korean leadership are entirely rational and that they make a deliberate "Mad Dog" pose.

I still think that they are dangerous, but no more so than any other power operators posing as mad dogs.

[Nik]

When you leave someone alone and its might grows, so might the appetite to unleash it. Further when you have someone with quite militant rhetoric, can you ever be sure? Who knows if these are just words and imitation, or they mean it? Is assuming a risk for the sake of not intervening a reasonable decision?
Now, we have sort of a stand off when each anticipates that the opponent may attack first. So preventive strike escalation becomes probable. It's a delicate moment. What if N.Korea, god forbid, attacks US aircraft carrier? Everyone would say, we should've dealt with the threat earlier... And if US launches a preventive strike, it would be accused of belligerence..
An example of ISIS gunman killing a police officer in Paris recently that had been arrested just two months preceding the attack and had expressed threats to kill police officers comes to mind. Had the threats been taken more seriously, when he was questioned, killing of the police officers could've been avoided.

It's relatively easy to escalate tensions, but deescalation might be a little more tricky.
Also, regimes see that promises like 'give up your nuke aspirations and we'll guarantee your security and integrity', don't work when they look at Ukraine..

[Ian]

Nik, I think the problem with doing something about Nth Korea is, what can you do that you can reasonably be sure won't make everything worse? If the US launches a "punishment strike", unlike Syria, Nth Korea will shoot back, and will probably invade the Sth. Sure, the US will probably win if it is prepared to kill most of the North Koreans because they cannot really wipe out the US, but is the price of a good per centage of South Korea worth the price? The problem is, Nth Korea is as likely as not to go for broke; the rulers cannot accept punishment and survive as leaders.

The answer to the Parisian gunman is, once having been so identified, he should not have been allowed to have guns. Ukraine was right to give up nukes, too. It was never going to try to nuke Russia, and actually Russia might very well be prepared to guarantee Ukraine's security if Ukraine didn't want to go off and oppose Russia. The integrity issue is a bitt too compliated for this thread.

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "Nik, I think the problem with doing something about Nth Korea is, what can you do that you can reasonably be sure won't make everything worse?..."

But I'm not sure - 'everything' should concern a president of any specific country. S/he are not elected to care for foreign countries (in this respect a slogan like "America first" makes sense) more than necessary under international treaties, but for their own, so arguably the safety of its own navy may be a higher priority than what happens in the North or in the South. And the same logic may still work against the retaliation even in case of N. Korean single first attack and retaliation bringing about the havoc..
Not saying I support a forceful resolution - just thinking out loud and reading your opinions. Most possible courses of actions may have obvious dangerous and tragic ramifications.

Maybe Ukraine was right, but then were those who vouched for its integrity and didn't do much? Ukraine didn't oppose Russia mind you, it's more Russia thought that an internal turmoil in Ukraine was a good opportunity to expand a little.

[Nik]

Meanwhile preparations for who knows what continue:
http://debka.com/article/26025/US-THA...

[J.J.]

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "I think that the N.Korean leadership are entirely rational and that they make a deliberate "Mad Dog" pose.

I still think that they are dangerous, but no more so than any other power operators pos..."

Side note, one of the nicknames our Secretary of Defense had in the Marine Corps was Mad Dog Mattis.

Ian, the question is not can the US defeat N. Korea. We almost did the first time around with the US Marines until China entered the fray. They're the wildcard to consider. If the war flares up again, are they going to jump in and defend their ally, or is their economic relation with the US important enough to remain on the sidelines?

Considering the airstrikes on Syria, I'm wondering if that might be the way to go with some of these nations...slap these dictators down whenever they behave badly, but leave them in power and hope they behave the way we want them to in order to prevent the next strike. But N. Korea acts like they're prepared to strike out, like they're determined to cause as much havoc as they can if someone challenges them. A new war is likely to rack up a bodycount we in the States aren't used to, as well as to destabilize S. Korea and its economy.

[Philip]

J.J. wrote: "Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "I think that the N.Korean leadership are entirely rational and that they make a deliberate "Mad Dog" pose.

I still think that they are dangerous, but no more so than any ..."

The South Korean losses will be massively greater than the US (or other allies) ones as Iraq and Afghan showed

[Ian]

North Korea's strategy is to tell everyone that you bomb us and we shall let fly with everything we have at Sth Korea and anyone who helps. There will not be some minor exchange and everybody goes on as if nothing happened as in Syria, and I disagree with Nik in saying the US should only consider itself. Any action that ends up with turning Korea into ash should be carefully thought out.

As an aside, the US military has a weakness: a great deal of its most sophisticated equipment have parts that depend on being supplied by China. The US may not be able to support a modest length conventional war if they have significant losses in equipment.

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "I disagree with Nik in saying the US should only consider itself. ..."

No, not ONLY itself, of course. A question of priorities.
However, ministerial responsibility for well-being of N. Korea lies with its leadership, not the US. So far, N.Korea tries to persuade everyone, themselves including, that they pose a real threat...

[Scout]

For many years, North Korea has played this game of posing as a threat and then retreating and lying low, while continuing to develop more sophisticated weapons. If we continue to let them play this game, they'll eventually come up with a weapon that will reach Hawaii. It's time to stop them. We have the capability to shoot down their weapons as soon as they're launched over the water. No need for war; just shut them down and let them know we mean business. I think attacking South Korea takes more balls than the un one has. He'll be sealing his own fate.

[Nik]

Another attempted launch this morning effectively sabotaged. So far so good