North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

Tornado
North Korea is also a far cry even from Russia, nevermind the Soviet Union.

Though it's an odd point to raise anyway. The US would only support South Korea from. North Korean invasion if they had bases there?
Click to expand...

Russia is literally on the border of North Korea. War planners will have considered how they'd react in the case of an annexation like the one that took place in Crimea. To some that act was in support of citizens there and to others it was an act of war (beyond the scope of this thread).

If the US has sovereign territory (eg bases) in a region then naturally that region is much more unlikely to be annexed (or invaded) in such a way. So yes, the presence of bases makes a crucial difference. That's not to say that without bases in SK there wouldn't be military support for them if appropriate but the rules of engagement are changed massively.
 
Tornado
South Korea isn't Afghanistan. South Korea isn't Chechnya. South Korea isn't Crimea.
North Korea is also a far cry even from Russia, nevermind the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
So an analogy needs to be exact to be used, I disagree, but duely noted (however Ukraine and the Crimea is a lot closer that you seem to realise).

Tornado
Though it's an odd point to raise anyway. The US would only support South Korea from. North Korean invasion if they had bases there?
Click to expand...
We don't know, but with bases in country its a significantly bigger deterrent and allows fro immediate rather than delayed or no action.

Tornado
Good thing we invaded all of those Middle Eastern countries and set up shop, too.
Click to expand...
Damn I totally forgot they were all nuclear states.

Tornado
South Korea would have mutual assistance even if there were no US forces stationed there.
Click to expand...
Odd because the Ukraine thought that would be the case when they gave up the Russian nukes they ended up with, they even signed a nice aggrement that said the UN would do just that (the US was one of the three external signatories to it), guess that one is a better analogy after all.

How did that go for the Ukraine and Crimea?


Tornado
And I'm sure it would be trivial for a country with dozens of aircraft carriers and physical military presence in multiple surrounding areas to go into the peninsula to provide direct support to South Korea, if North Korea actually invaded, even if Trump had promised to pull out entirely. Which he didn't do, since all he did was say that joint exercises are suspended.
Click to expand...
First Trump has suggested that one of his end moves is the removal of US troops (he's been banging on about that one since before he got elected - bad deal costs the US too much), and the point still stands that reaction when you have forces in country is pretty much a certanty, when you don't its not (Crimea again).


Tornado
As much as Starcraft is loved in the region, I'm skeptical Zerg Rush is a particularly viable military tactic.
Click to expand...
Really - its worked extremely well many, many times before. Again Crimea springs to mind. Oh and the US lead invasions of numerous countries were initially carried out with exactly that kind of tactic.


Tornado
That has pretty much always been true. Including before North Korea got a missile that could hit something other than their own cities, when the US wasn't terribly bothered.
Click to expand...
It has always been true, but more so today than ever (artillery technology has moved on since '53) and the US have been 'terribly bothered' since that date, with troops stationed and exercise carried out since that year. Its also be reciprocal, with SK providing the second largest contingent of men (after the US) in Vietnam.
 
TenEightyOne
Russia is literally on the border of North Korea.
Click to expand...
Uhm, but RF doesn't border with South Korea that this discussion is worried about. Or I don't get something?

If it's about DPRK invading RoK... From what I know, North Korea doesn't have a proper offensive potential. It can barely defend itself (and use WMDs as a deterrence factor). But offensive would take a lot more resources that DPRK is badly limited on. The Korean People's Army doesn't have properly mechanized ground units that would penetrate the South Korean defence effectively and quickly. If they try to deploy airborne, their aviation (dating back to '60s or even earlier) would be divided by zero. So blitzkrieg is not an option, and an enduring war is even worse for NK, whose resources wouldn't last for too long even in defence. And it's said that China will not join a war if DPRK starts it first.

In my couch opinion, it would be enough to maintain the ROK Armed Forces in proper condition to ensure South Korea's security even without the presence of foreign military...

...and it's up to Russia to sell spare parts for those T-80's in South Korean service.
 
Scaff
Just for the sheer madness of it, we now have the NK video from the summit, all 42 minutes of it, and boy were they happy when Kim arrived back home.



Edited to add:

Work just threw this one around, warning on active Trojans from NK hackers.

https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/analysis-reports/AR18-165A
Click to expand...


...but I mean, they have to be happy when he gets back, because what happens when you're not? That's the kind of respect that a good leader commands (apparently).
 
TenEightyOne
An interesting story about an out-of-bounds floor in the Yanggakdo International Hotel along with a theory about how Otto Warmbier may have obtained his infamous propaganda poster. BBC.
Click to expand...

Suddenly their odd treatment of Warmbier and the fact that he "accidentally" died makes more sense. He saw something he wasn't supposed to.
 
TenEightyOne
An interesting story about an out-of-bounds floor in the Yanggakdo International Hotel along with a theory about how Otto Warmbier may have obtained his infamous propaganda poster. BBC.
Click to expand...

That was a good read, really weird how they split one floor into two... you'd think they could have taken a couple of floors... I also love the hand panted propaganda posters and how they litter that 5th floor
 
Scaff
The problem is that Kim isn't technically breaking what he signed, as no timeframe was agreed on at all.

What a deal!
Click to expand...
Trump says he makes the best deals. He just doesnt tell you who they are best for... Such as openning up the great lakes for oil drilling... thats a great deal... if your an oil company anyway. Luckily we still have a number of coalition that all need to be in agreeance before anything like that can happen, and given the drama of line 5, its not likely.
 
Scaff
Oh look Kim might be fibbing...

http://thehill.com/policy/internati...rth-korea-upgrading-nuclear-research-facility

...who would have guessed.

Maybe agreeing to actually detail around something like this is important after all.
Click to expand...
lackofsurprise-jpg.745068
 
Danoff
No bigs, sounds like we can put those military drills right back where they were...

ghostbusters1984_36.jpg
Click to expand...
At which point NK cries foul on the US.

The US agreed to cancel them without any preconditions, NK wasn't subject to any timeframes for any action of disarmament.

As I said above "Maybe agreeing to actually detail around something like this is important after all."
 
Scaff
At which point NK cries foul on the US.

The US agreed to cancel them without any preconditions, NK wasn't subject to any timeframes for any action of disarmament.

As I said above "Maybe agreeing to actually detail around something like this is important after all."
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any way that NK can cry foul on that. Can you explain to me exactly how they would cry foul?
 
Yes, there's nothing in the 'deal' that commits the US to anything - cancelling drills with South Korea isn't a formal part of any agreement that Trump has signed up to... rather, it was a gesture of goodwill in the wake/spirit of the deal in response to (apparent) concessions from North Korea, and in the hope that it might help convince the DPRK that the US is sincere about being committed towards a peaceful resolution to the current stand-off.

However, as apparently weak as the 'deal' is, DPRK beefing up their nuclear facilities is a direct breach of both the word and the spirit of the deal - and if that continues to be the case, then we can probably expect the goodwill gestures to come to an abrupt end.
 
Danoff
I'm not aware of any way that NK can cry foul on that. Can you explain to me exactly how they would cry foul?
Click to expand...
That the US has broken its stated agreement with NK to end said exercises.

In return NK agreed to commit to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Given that no timeframes were set for that, nor details of what that involved (in either the talks with SK or the talks with the US) they can (and almost certainly will) argue that haven't broken it.

Whatever way it pans out, it wasn't the deal its was sold to be.


Touring Mars
However, as apparently weak as the 'deal' is, DPRK beefing up their nuclear facilities is a direct breach of both the word and the spirit of the deal
Click to expand...
In regard to the word and spirit of the deal, I would agree in regard to the later, but not the former, as no detail or timeframes were included (that said even if it had been the end result would be the same - they do have a track record of doing just this).
 
Scaff
That the US has broken its stated agreement with NK to end said exercises.

In return NK agreed to commit to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Given that no timeframes were set for that, nor details of what that involved (in either the talks with SK or the talks with the US) they can (and almost certainly will) argue that haven't broken it.

Whatever way it pans out, it wasn't the deal its was sold to be.



In regard to the word and spirit of the deal, I would agree in regard to the later, but not the former, as no detail or timeframes were included (that said even if it had been the end result would be the same - they do have a track record of doing just this).
Click to expand...

They're not going to lawyer their way out of this, and the US isn't bound by their agreement if NK doesn't hold up their part (or even if they do, but that would be us lawyering). We agreed to suspend drills in exchange for denuclearization. If we think they're not doing that, we can go back to where we were before. Nobody can cry foul. Nobody can claim a breach of any agreement, and the court of world opinion will judge us more for NOT doing it.
 
Scaff
At which point NK cries foul on the US.

The US agreed to cancel them without any preconditions, NK wasn't subject to any timeframes for any action of disarmament.

As I said above "Maybe agreeing to actually detail around something like this is important after all."
Click to expand...
Because working out all the details as work so well in the past?
 
Johnnypenso
Because working out all the details as work so well in the past?
Click to expand...

At least it left the rest of the world with a clear conclusion that North Korea violated the agreement, they're the bad guys. This time, there's a lot of room to conclude Trump's willful ignorance and unpreparedness failed to produce any clear guidelines, and left North Korea with a lot of wiggle room.
 
huskeR32
At least it left the rest of the world with a clear conclusion that North Korea violated the agreement, they're the bad guys. This time, there's a lot of room to conclude Trump's willful ignorance and unpreparedness failed to produce any clear guidelines, and left North Korea with a lot of wiggle room.
Click to expand...

I think it leaves the US as much (or more) wiggle room. We get to decide when they're not being good enough. I think we need to have decided that already.
 
Touring Mars
Yes, there's nothing in the 'deal' that commits the US to anything - cancelling drills with South Korea isn't a formal part of any agreement that Trump has signed up to... rather, it was a gesture of goodwill in the wake/spirit of the deal in response to (apparent) concessions from North Korea, and in the hope that it might help convince the DPRK that the US is sincere about being committed towards a peaceful resolution to the current stand-off.

However, as apparently weak as the 'deal' is, DPRK beefing up their nuclear facilities is a direct breach of both the word and the spirit of the deal - and if that continues to be the case, then we can probably expect the goodwill gestures to come to an abrupt end.
Click to expand...
Johnnypenso
Because working out all the details as work so well in the past?
Click to expand...
All of which was managed without giving Kim a world stage and a nice home PR coup.
 
Scaff
I wouldn't have thought of you as being one dismiss 45s presence so easily.



Trump fell for it. End of story.[/QUO
And so did the last 3... He's not the master of the deal...
I do recall saying I'd be just as critical once we see what happened. Trump lost...
Click to expand...
 
I kind of wonder if Kim is doing exactly what Trump wanted him to do. It's obvious he wasn't huge on the diplomatic route everyone kept telling him to take. So his response was "fine, I'll try it but don't expect me to put any effort into it!" and now that that's failed he can say he at least tried before turning the key and pushing the button.
 

Latest Posts

Back