North Korea Nuclear Test?

[Jacque67 7,328]

So trump is tougher on S Korea than China, coz trademarks, javanka and'll. How pathetic. He should have stuck with selling parking lots in Queens-more his thing.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

9 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

It looks like what foreign policy geeks like me have been awaiting but fearing has happened with yet another Nuclear Test.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/tremor-strikes-north-korea-usgs-170903034027216.html

Time for China to reel him in. 

[Jacque67 7,328]

7 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Time for China to reel him in. 

They will.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

10 hours ago, IAMX said:

Why all these years has the international community been useless and allowed this to happen?

 

Years of Bush and Obama appeasement and Trump is, one way or another, going to have to clean up.

Or Trump could just Tweet stupid stuff, and huff, puff, and do nothing but bluster. Looks like that's his plan to me.

 

There is no way to do much of anything without risking massive casualties on South Korea.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, Jacque67 said:

They will.

When? " Time for China to reel him in" means this has gone on long enough and it is past time for action.  Can they will they?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

The politics of appeasement are coming home to roost.  This could have been dealt with many years ago, much easier. 

 

Time to loose the dogs of war 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

51 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

Or Trump could just Tweet stupid stuff, and huff, puff, and do nothing but bluster. Looks like that's his plan to me.

 

There is no way to do much of anything without risking massive casualties on South Korea.

And not doing anything will guarantee massive casualties.  

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

The politics of appeasement are coming home to roost.  This could have been dealt with many years ago, much easier. 

 

Time to loose the dogs of war 

Thanks Trump.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

Thanks Trump.

Thank God we do t have another Obama handling this, he would probably send them billions of dollars and punt the problem in his typical jello knee fashion. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

3 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

When? " Time for China to reel him in" means this has gone on long enough and it is past time for action.  Can they will they?

I agree with you on this because China at this point in time now they can not do anything at all against him. They have been left with not being able reel him in at all.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Thank God we do t have another Obama handling this, he would probably send them billions of dollars and punt the problem in his typical jello knee fashion. 

Which President has been tough with North Korea? 

[Jacque67 7,328]

6 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

Or Trump could just Tweet stupid stuff, and huff, puff, and do nothing but bluster. Looks like that's his plan to me.

 

There is no way to do much of anything without risking massive casualties on South Korea.

Yeah, he's all over the place. Tweeted that he was considering stopping trade with any country going business with NKorea (14 countries do at the moment, including the Philippines, France, Mexico, Germany, Russia and France)

 

tweets he's meeting Kelly and Mattis.

 

kim has him running all over the joint. Also not a good idea to tweet about meetings before they take place.

[Jacque67 7,328]

At the WH DefSec Mattis serves notice on NK, that any threat to the US and allies will be met with "a massive military response"

 

Umm, Kim has already launched a missile over Japan and threatened Guam!

[Jacque67 7,328]

This is a well-thought out article, explaining the option of "coercive diplomacy" written in August.

 

Unfortunately, like many national security debates these days, our national discussion about how to address the growing North Korean threat has quickly become polarized between two extreme positions. In one corner, President Trump has threatened a preemptive military strike in response (I’m paraphrasing his remarks into more analytic terms) to new threats from the North Korean regime. In reaction, Trump opponents have advocated the exact opposite — talks with Kim Jong-un. Both of these options are insufficient. In fact, threatening nuclear war or proposing talks are only partial strategies at best, slogans at worst, for dealing with one of our most pressing national security challenges. What we need instead is first a clearly defined objective, then second a smart mix of both diplomacy and pressure — coercive diplomacy — to achieve that national security goal.

Coercive diplomacy served the United States well in deterring and then reducing the Soviet threat during the Cold War. This same strategy can also work against a much less formidable North Korean foe. Like Stalin, Kim Jong-un is a ruthless dictator, capable of unspeakable crimes against his citizens. But he is not irrational. Like his grandfather and father, he can be deterred. And he might be capable of doing a deal.

All effective national security policies must start with defining the objectives before pivoting to discussions about how to achieve them. Right now, our objectives regarding North Korea are ill-defined and many. Some, including Trump administration officials, argue for denuclearization. Others seek regime change and reunification. Diminishing the North Korean nuclear program through limited military strikes is a third objective proffered. A fourth camp advocates the removal of Kim Jong-un, or decapitation of the regime. A fifth group advocates a more modest goal — the resumption of talks with the North Korean government. The Trump administration itself sends conflicting messages about its objectives.

All of these must be set aside for now. While Kim Jong-un and his regime remain in power, denuclearization is not a realistic goal. The North Korean leader rationally believes that possession of nuclear weapons helps to deter threats to his regime, including first and foremost from the United States. No amount of coercion or diplomacy will ever convince him otherwise. Foreign induced regime change or leader decapitation also is not a realistic goal. Tragically, the North Korean dictatorship has demonstrated real resilience in the face of famine, sanctions and international isolation. American efforts to strengthen internal opposition have not produced pressure on the regime. Assassination or decapitation, even if it could be done (and I am skeptical) would not compel the next North Korean leader to give up his nuclear weapons. On the contrary, the effect would be the exact opposite. And nothing more will rally North Koreans to defend their government than such an action. Nor should resumption of talks be the goal of our efforts. Talks are the means to achieve other objectives, not the objective in and of itself.

Instead, our singular focus for the short term must be to freeze the North Korean nuclear weapons and missile programs. Early arms control during the Cold War (SALT) slowed the acceleration of nuclear weapons acquisition, creating the predicate for eventual weapons reduction in later negotiations (START). The same sequence must be embraced now with North Korea. The objective of freezing North Korean nuclear and missile programs would enhance American national security as well as the security of allies. This objective is also obtainable.

https://medium.com/freeman-spogli-institute-for-international-studies/cold-war-lessons-in-coercive-diplomacy-for-dealing-with-north-korea-today-5a729f719ce

[Jacque67 7,328]

8 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

When? " Time for China to reel him in" means this has gone on long enough and it is past time for action.  Can they will they?

From an Atlantic article 5 days ago:

The United States and its allies can never depend on China for their defense. As long as North Korea remains a nuclear state, it will be necessary to maintain and even strengthen the U.S. presence on the peninsula, to deter North Korea and to resist China’s attempts to eject American forces from the region. Yet the United States and China share an interest in regional stability—stopping North Korea from starting a war. China’s recent military moves suggest it is willing to threaten force to keep the peace. If U.S. officials explored the issue, they might find Chinese military officers willing to deconflict military operations, to coordinate deterrent threats and military operations with their U.S. counterparts, or even to finally open the crucial dialogue on planning for a North Korean collapse. When Kim Jong Un looks out from Pyongyang in coming years, he may find himself without an ally to hide behind, and think twice about acting aggressively.

Coordinated deterrence is only possible if Beijing sees Washington as dedicated to stability. The Trump administration will have to abandon its quixotic theory that it can create a crisis so intense that North Korea will fall to its knees and volunteer to abandon its nuclear weapons. Instead, the United States must follow the path that Seoul, Tokyo, and now Beijing have laid out: to contain and deter the regime in Pyongyang and preserve a stable Northeast Asia.