Small bump in case Trump follows through on McMaster's threat to strike NK pre-emptively.

North Korea's latest missile test has an estimated maximum range of 6700 km, which means it can reach Anchorage. If the US has any intention of stopping NK from being a nuclear power - and it should - we can't wait any longer. What can motivate Kim Jong Un to stop his nuclear program when he is so close to nuclear power and security? Sanctions are going to finally work? We should bomb North Korea's missile sites.

And when they rebuild them in different places, continue bombing them? And if "we" miss a few sites, wouldn't NK be justified in letting "us" have one back?

Isn't the better approach diplomacy through China (who seem well placed politically to mediate)?

Are you submitting that the purpose of NK's nuclear program is their security? If so, and you are trying to prevent them from obtaining security (from invasion I suppose), then shouldn't this bombing be followed by invasion and regime change or reunification with SK? Otherwise why are you opposed to their security?

That's devil's advocating for sure. I don't really relish being in striking distance of any country's nuclear missiles, so I see the point of destroying them just in case, although there are other factors like whether or not that would be effective long term and what the downsides would likely be.

The US and SK are far more aggressive than NK though and I wonder if we were content to let NK be a terrible hidden kingdom could we not guarantee their sovereignty and back off from our military displays in exchange for cessation of the nuclear program and access for weapons inspectors.

I don't know what's a good way out, but the simple truth of the NK situation is that they're developing weapons because they think the US is an existential threat to them - so the US (or anyone) responding to that by ramping up the existential threat is certainly not going to work.

The internal security of the regime in NK has to be precarious. They do what they can to lock out information from the outside world, but it does get in. I've read reports about how popular shows from SK are smuggled in and people hide in their rooms under blankets to watch them. A regime that extreme and isolated has to be fragile.

I wonder if they could survive not having the US as an enemy.

Putting on my tinfoil hat, I wonder if detante is for NK to pretend to threaten the West and for the West to pretend to be threatened.

Certainly security is at least part of their motivation. NK's security from invasion now is primarily the retaliation their artillery could mete out against Seoul and China's opposition to reunification. That is sufficient to prevent invasion by the US or its allies, but it is a one-shot. If NK retaliates against US air strikes by bombing Seoul, then the US should and would invade and quickly topple KJU. If they do not retaliate, then the current stand-off is still probably better than invasion.

I'm opposed to NK using nuclear weapons for their security because (a) the NK government has threatened to annihilate the US and (b) I don't expect a nuclear NK to abide by NPT terms. In 2015, NK's trade exports were $3B. A single nuclear ICBM would sell for many multiples of that. I'd expect Iran and Saudi Arabia to soon also be nuclear powers if NK is successful.


The US and SK are not more aggressive than NK. We are resigned to letting NK be a terrible hidden kingdom. We are not (I hope) resigned to them being a terrible hidden kingdom with nuclear weapons. If NK agreed to cease its nuclear program and allow inspections, I'm confident we would back off (just as we did with Iran).

I think at this point it's a symbiotic relationship of sorts, certainly, though one that is probably not beneficial to either at the moment. The regime would need a new modus operandi if the US threat was gone, but it's probably in a decent position to create one. At least power wise, possibly not intellectually

Any de-escalation would also have to address the reason why it was always (up until this nuclear situation) fine for the US for there to be escalation - that they were big fans of having a military base in the area. The US's interest is certainly not in NK having nuclear weapons, but it's also definitely not in having no excuse to stock SK chock full of US troops, sailors, weapons etc.

Yes, well, developing a nuclear program probably does make the US an existential threat to them, at least until it is successful. The US has historically been committed to preventing rogue states like NK from developing nuclear weapons. Also, I'll point out that it was North Korea that crossed the 38th parallel back in 1950.

The largest war games in the world are annual Foal Eagle games where we practice things like "beheading strikes" and pre-emptive nuclear strikes with massive military mobilizations right on their border.

I don't see how you can suggest that we aren't more aggressive. Their rhetoric may be a bit more wild, but we constantly, soberly and credibly discuss attacking them.

In regards to Iran I think it's a very different situation. Iran I think could and wants to open up to the West and I think it's government could easily survive it. Iran is more like Cuba in relation to the US.

For NK opening up the West is essentially annihilation for the regime and probably death for KJU.

I think you have that backwards. The reason NK is developing a nuclear programme is because the US has identified it as an Axis Of Evil for some time now, and when you look at how readily non-nuclear Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded after being called the same, and the US's habit of electing violent imbeciles as POTUS, what would YOU do if you were NK's leader?

I'm sure, as the bombs start flying, your moral certainly in crying "but they started it!" will be a comfort.

Or, less flippantly, whilst I think reducing it all to who crossed the 38th parallel is far too simplistic a summary of the situation in Korea over the last 67 years, it's also somewhat irrelevant in figuring out how we might get out of it.

Worth adding that I fear China's influence is also somewhat of a red herring, at least compared to the military brinkmanship, but for what's possibly a counter-intuitive reason. Everything that's said about them being economically tied to NK is true, but these days that link is so important to NK that seriously threatening it is effectively also an existential threat to them.

So China has an interest to not actually make that threat - partly because they like the trade too, but mostly as they have no wish to join the list of places Pyongyang might nuke. They'll certainly try and de-escalate the situation if possible (it's a pipe dream, but they'd love the US navy to leave the area), but there's no way their pressure on NK can ever match that which the US seems to actually want to keep up.

And if the answer is forever maintain a conventional arsenal deployed and ready for war sufficient to protect against invasion, well, that's barely sustainable for the richest country in the world. I guess that's our strategy - for them to crumble on the weight of defense spending like the USSR, but they have held out by emulating 1984 so closely.

We kind of have to do that though. Its not like if we left the peninsula and said we don't care about North Korea and completely left them alone they would start being nice.

Of course it kind of sucks that we toppled Khaddafi after he decided to play ball in 2003. That has to weigh on the North Korean decision making process now and make it harder to come back from the brink.

I don't know if we have this capability yet or not, but if we could reliably shoot down an ICBM from North Korea then we could have more time to just wait and hope the regime caves in on itself.

The other options all kind of suck. MAD isn't an option with this particular brand of bat**** crazy leadership. Things were easier when dealing with the Soviets. They may have been evil, but at least they were rational chess players.

I think you are seriously underestimating the aggressive nature of NK developing nuclear weapons here. The US doing military exercises is not an attempt to gain more power over NK than it already has. NK developing nuclear weapons does. To some extent, this is a reflection of a already existing imbalance of powers. But nonetheless, any attempt to change that status quo by developing nuclear weapons should be understood as an aggressive action. There are a lot of countries around the world that don't like the US and say so publicly. There is a reason why NK gets so much more attention than them.

Stalin was an imperialist.

Since 1950 the US has had military engagements in other countries something like 60 times. For good reasons or not, the US is clearly an existential threat to any country it's not aligned with except I guess Russia and China, though perhaps even them and perhaps Russia is a threat to the US democracy at least.

I agree with this analysis. But follow the logic. Doesn't that mean that sanctions against NK are mostly ineffective?

Brutally tough decision making process. How long can we sit and watch a country develop missiles that they have openly said they are targeting our country? How many do we let them develop?

A preemptive strike sounds extremely dangerous too. Supposedly they have 12 nuclear missiles ready to go. We better hit all 12.

I wonder if the world can just buy them out. Not certain they would trust the world giving them billions and disarming. There is too much distrust on both sides.

The one thing that doesn't hurt would continue to talk. I don't know what this means and through him, but there is no harm in keeping a dialogue open.

And who knows with Trump. Two wild card leader in NK and USA.

I don't doubt that they are a threat and like I said I don't relish the idea of living in their striking distance (Los Angeles). And they are a threat to spread weapons or technology to terrorist groups. (Saudi Arabia could get weapons much more easily by developing their own or buying from Pakistan)

That said, I think what I said is true. We are more aggressive. Practicing to invade them every year on their door step is incredibly provocative. From their position there may well not be a strategy that ensures the regime stays in power, but nuclear weapons may rationally seem like the most likely path. Sure, none of us want them to stay in power, but we have to consider what KJU would perceive to be in his interest.

We can argue about this, but I don't think the answer one way or the other is relevant. Regardless of their motivations for acquiring them, a nuclear-armed NK would be a disaster.

Yep. Having nuclear weapons gets you at the big boy's table. No country that has nuclear weapons has ever been invaded or lost territory. The reason is a reason we have invaded all of the Middle East countries with "bad" leaders and because of "WMDs" but we don't touch NK.

NK can brazenly state that they are intent on destroying us and we really can't do much because of nuclear weapons.

Their motivations don't change how much of a disaster it would be, but their motivations are precisely what need to be addressed to prevent it. Their main motivation is the US attitude towards them.

Depends. We could either be adding pressure to NK by increasing poverty to the point where we create a crisis and revolution or, if my tinfoil hat theory is right, we could be playing the part of their enemy to keep their regime in power and that's detante. Sanctions could also push them to nuclear weapons as a conventional defense becomes less and less sustainable.

And again, I'm partly playing devil's advocate, but I really don't think anyone on the outside here can be confident in what the real situation or best approach is.