• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Atlantic: How to Deal With North Korea

D

Dreams-Visions

Member
sY1HDPl.png


Thirty minutes. That's about how long it would take a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launched from North Korea to reach Los Angeles. With the powers in Pyongyang working doggedly toward making this possible—building an ICBM and shrinking a nuke to fit on it—analysts now predict that Kim Jong Un will have the capability before Donald Trump completes one four-year term.

About which the president has tweeted, simply, ”It won't happen!"

Though given to reckless oaths, Trump is not in this case saying anything that departs significantly from the past half century of futile American policy toward North Korea. Preventing the Kim dynasty from having a nuclear device was an American priority long before Pyongyang exploded its first nuke, in 2006, during the administration of George W. Bush. The Kim regime detonated four more while Barack Obama was in the White House. In the more than four decades since Richard Nixon held office, the U.S. has tried to control North Korea by issuing threats, conducting military exercises, ratcheting up diplomatic sanctions, leaning on China, and most recently, it seems likely, committing cybersabotage.

For his part, Trump has also tweeted that North Korea is ”looking for trouble" and that he intends to ”solve the problem." His administration has leaked plans for a ”decapitation strike" that would target Kim, which seems like the very last thing a country ought to announce in advance.

None of which, we should all pray, will amount to much. Ignorant of the long history of the problem, Trump at least brings fresh eyes to it. But he is going to collide with the same harsh truth that has stymied all his recent predecessors: There are no good options for dealing with North Korea. Meanwhile, he is enthusiastically if unwittingly playing the role assigned to him by the comic-book-style foundation myth of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Click to expand...

How should the United States proceed?

What to do about North Korea has been an intractable problem for decades. Although shooting stopped in 1953, Pyongyang insists that the Korean War never ended. It maintains as an official policy goal the reunification of the Korean peninsula under the Kim dynasty.

As tensions flared in recent months, fanned by bluster from both Washington and Pyongyang, I talked with a number of national-security experts and military officers who have wrestled with the problem for years, and who have held responsibility to plan and prepare for real conflict. Among those I spoke with were former officials from the White House, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon; military officers who have commanded forces in the region; and academic experts.

From these conversations, I learned that the U.S. has four broad strategic options for dealing with North Korea and its burgeoning nuclear program.

  1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang's arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea's standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.
  2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea's capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.
  3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.
  4. Acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim's developing the weapons he wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.

Let's consider each option. All of them are bad.
Click to expand...

A huge amount more here, going into great detail about each possible option:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

It's long, so an audio reading available on Soundcloud here: https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/the-worst-problem-on-earth-the-atlantic-mark-bowden

For those truly interested in the threat of North Korea and what options the West has in dealing with them (and some perspective on very real pros and cons), this is very much worth your time. As most pieces by The Atlantic are.
 
B

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I think we're on the route to number 4 (acceptance). There simply won't be a big enough crisis moment to justify risky pre-emptive action, and one day we'll wake up and they'll be nuclear launch capable.
 
X

Xando

Member
1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang’s arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea’s standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.
2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea’s capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.
Click to expand...

The idea that any small attack on a country that has been fed an american attack is imminient and will result in total war would work without major escalation on the korean border is nonsense

3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

This is the same nonsense thinking that got us into the iraq war. These people have been indoctrinated for 60 years and will not just open itself up to the world
 
M

makingmusic476

Member
Xando said:
The idea that any small attack on a country that has been fed an american attack is imminient and will result in total war would work without major escalation on the korean border is nonsense



This is the same nonsense thinking that got us into the iraq war. These people have been indoctrinated for 60 years and will not just open itself up to the world
Click to expand...
You should really read the rest of the article. :p
 
D

Dreams-Visions

Member
Xando said:
The idea that any small attack on a country that has been fed an american attack is imminient and will result in total war would work without major escalation on the korean border is nonsense



This is the same nonsense thinking that got us into the iraq war. These people have been indoctrinated for 60 years and will not just open itself up to the world
Click to expand...

The article agrees with you. I encourage you to read or listen to it for even more on why, including some tangential issues you probably didn't consider.

This is a really well done article, made approachable by non-academics. It's really good, fam.
 
C

clemenx

Banned
At this point there's nothing that can be done. Such regimes had to be thrown out right at the start. North Korea as it is right now is something that flat out should not have been allowed to exist.
 
Z

Zophar

Member
I hate to say it but acceptance seems like the "best" worst path. North Korea blusters but it's been very consistent in actual diplomatic channels: it just wants to be left alone, and nuclear deterrence is their way of stopping interference.

The Kims can't keep up their stranglehold on the country forever. The regime will collapse but it will happen organically and from within.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Zophar said:
I hate to say it but acceptance seems like the "best" worst path. North Korea blusters but it's been very consistent in actual diplomatic channels: it just wants to be left alone, and nuclear deterrence is their way of stopping interference.

The Kims can't keep up their stranglehold on the country forever. The regime will collapse but it will happen organically and from within.
Click to expand...

The issue is that's why we don't want to let them have nukes. Say the country destabilizes and the regime falls apart, what's to stop a rogue general looking to make an early retirement from selling off nuclear material?
 
Z

Zophar

Member
B-Dubs said:
The issue is that's why we don't want to let them have nukes. Say the country destabilizes and the regime falls apart, what's to stop a rogue general looking to make an early retirement from selling off nuclear material?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a good option - and neither does The Atlantic. That's a shitty scary risk but given the alternatives it's the least shitty, least risky option.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Zophar said:
I didn't say it was a good option - and neither does The Atlantic. That's a shitty scary risk but given the alternatives it's the least shitty, least risky option.
Click to expand...

I know. The article is absolutely right: there are only bad options here. Even a best case scenario--the Kims decide they want to step down and reunify the country with South Korea (which will never happen)--would be a shitshow of almost unprecedented proportions.

No matter what anyone decides to do it's all going to shit in some way.
 
T

The Greek Freak

Member
B-Dubs said:
I know. The article is absolutely right: there are only bad options here. Even a best case scenario--the Kims decide they want to step down and reunify the country with South Korea (which will never happen)--would be a shitshow of almost unprecedented proportions.

No matter what anyone decides to do it's all going to shit in some way.
Click to expand...

Yup, reunification would be an enormous economic burden on SK on a greater scale than basically anything I can think of besides a country being ruined by war.
 
andythinkpad

andythinkpad

Member
If you give up Taiwan, China will help you roll over NK. Simple.
Not simple, because most U.S. president won't do it.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
With the powers in Pyongyang working doggedly toward making this possible—building an ICBM and shrinking a nuke to fit on it—analysts now predict that Kim Jong Un will have the capability before Donald Trump completes one four-year term.
Click to expand...

i would like to point out that a lot of the "analysts" giving scary NK quotes to newspapers over the last few months have been lobbyists that work for companies making weapons they want to sell to the US and SK governments
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
aeolist said:
i would like to point out that a lot of the "analysts" giving scary NK quotes to newspapers over the last few months have been lobbyists that work for companies making weapons they want to sell to the US and SK governments
Click to expand...

no, most of them are researchers who work for universities/think tanks or are journalists.

you can follow their work here http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/

one of the best even relies on patreon, not arms companies.

also most of the analysts are quoted by name in the article
 
X

Xando

Member
Prophet Steve said:
I'm not sure if you really grasp the point of the article.
Click to expand...
He makes the same point as i. Any military action would be foolish.

Yet he suggests some officials he talked to think option 1-3 are the way to go forward which is troublesome to say the least.
 
C

clemenx

Banned
Dreams-Visions said:
I think everyone would agree.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my point is that the world needs to rethink its international instances. UN and everything alike are worthless against these outliers of craziness. Diplomacy and sovereignty get used by the regimes against human lives when they're instances of civilization that exist to protect people.

My country is kinda suffering this 1st hand. 2 days ago the OAS failed to sanction Venezuela due to 2 mere votes and since then the regime has killed 4 people protesting. We're going to be (if not, already are) a failed state in the middle of the western hemisphere under everyone's noses.
 
M

Maztorre

Member
B-Dubs said:
The issue is that's why we don't want to let them have nukes. Say the country destabilizes and the regime falls apart, what's to stop a rogue general looking to make an early retirement from selling off nuclear material?
Click to expand...

I don't see a feasible path to destabilisation though. The Kim family have kept the military leadership happy for generations, and in any case, if a "rogue general" wanted wealth, China and South Korea would eagerly step up with bribes.

The biggest risk around North Korea is dipshit leaders seeking to build a legacy for themselves by trying to "solve" NK within their terms as leader. The actions of the DPRK leadership are brutally rational, they are pursuing a deterrent to prevent regime change in the style of Iraq/Libya. This is basically inevitable at this point, so the long-term humanitarian goal becomes essentially bribing future leadership with aid in exchange for minor concessions again and again over many years. The US will simply have to learn to live with being within ICBM range of NK, the same way the residents of SK, Japan and China have until now.
 
D

Dreams-Visions

Member
clemenx said:
Yeah, my point is that the world needs to rethink its international instances. UN and everything alike are worthless against these outliers of craziness. Diplomacy and sovereignty get used by the regimes against human lives when they're instances of civilization that exist to protect people.

My country is kinda suffering this 1st hand. 2 days ago the OAS failed to sanction Venezuela due to 2 mere votes and since then the regime has killed 4 people protesting. We're going to be (if not, already are) a failed state in the middle of the western hemisphere under everyone's noses.
Click to expand...

Feels bad. I suppose it's hard with stakes being so high on all sides. So many ramifications for action (or inaction). Especially against this sort of unique crazy. Irrational crazy.
 
E

ElFly

Member
any kind of preemptive strike cannot be fast and through enough that NK doesn't completely fuck up South Korea, and maybe big parts of Japan, nuclear weapons or not

maybe Trump won't care tho
 
J

jstevenson

Sailor Stevenson
ElFly said:
any kind of preemptive strike cannot be fast and through enough that NK doesn't completely fuck up South Korea, and maybe big parts of Japan, nuclear weapons or not

maybe Trump won't care tho
Click to expand...

yeah the amount of mortars pointed at Seoul will devastate that city unless the preemptive strike is just absolutely overwhelming, and even then, it still won't save Seoul
 
4

4Tran

Member
bitbydeath said:
All options are on the table.
Click to expand...
Options 1-3 will lead to full out war, so they're not realistic options to begin with. It's technically:

Option 1. War
Option 2. War
Option 3. War
Option 4. Acceptance

North Korea is going to have to assume that any attack as an existential threat so they're going to have to make it as costly as possible for their attackers. If North Korea had a better military and more strategic depth they would be open to a larger range of reactions, but they don't have that.

The other problem is that people in the US think that a limited military strike will stay that way.

TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared said:
If the US attacks NK, won't the chinese intervene like they did in 1950 to protect their national interest?
Click to expand...
China's strategic situation is nothing like what it was in 1950.
 
bitbydeath

bitbydeath

Member
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared said:
If the US attacks NK, won't the chinese intervene like they did in 1950 to protect their national interest?
Click to expand...

That's what could turn things from a war into a world war.

4Tran said:
Options 1-3 will lead to full out war, so they're not realistic options to begin with. It's technically:

Option 1. War
Option 2. War
Option 3. War
Option 4. Acceptance.
Click to expand...

Option 4 is wait to see if/when NK strikes.

There are no good options.
 
4

4Tran

Member
bitbydeath said:
Option 4 is wait to see if/when NK strikes.

There are no good options.
Click to expand...
No good options is the whole point of the article. However, not War is considered to be better than War for the time being so it's still the best of a bad bunch. Moreover, North Korea still doesn't have any strategic depth or much in the way of military options, so they'll know that any nuclear attack is also tantamount to suicide. And if North Korea was interested in suicide, they could have attacked South Korea any time in the last 60 years.
 
L

Lo-Volt

Member
The Atlantic also had some international relations brains discuss options about North Korea in 2005, though it was also in the context of lessons learned in Iraq. It was porter downbeat about what was possible and justified even then. It's good supplementary reading though.

“That's why our policy must clearly state that for every nuke they use, we will use a hundred,” McInerney said.

The other members of the Principals Committee seemed taken aback by this statement.
Click to expand...

And that was within the first half of the exercise. The truth is, not only because of our inability to stop Pyongyang, but because of our inability to stop proliferation generally and bolster the alliances we have, nuclear acceptance could be one of the big themes of this century. Countries like Japan and South Korea have the wealth and technical ability to develop a nuclear deterrent, but not the political norms that would make the choice acceptable. But if Donald Trump runs his mouth more, will that begin to change?
 
M

MagnaderAlpha

Member
I think some Right wingers, including Trump, wouldn't mind getting into war. I can see them dreaming of conquering North Korean, ousting the Communist rule, and instead of giving it back to South Korea in hopes of a united Korea, they'd claim it as Far East America (FEA), then send all the minorities of the USA over there to make America White again.

Trump (and any other dumbass racist our country shat out): "It's okay, the Mexicans and Blacks and Chinese people will like it over there. There's already minorities living there, it would be like 'Minority Heaven' to them! Sure, we'll tax you twice as bad, but, whattaya gonna do?"
 
B

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
NYCmetsfan said:
just like the russians and chinese have
Click to expand...
Yeah it's ultimately not the end of the world. But it does mean NK is here to stay, and they'll have some leverage in world politics.

Who knows, it might mellow them out, knowing they're no longer a cornered animal...
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
MagnaderAlpha said:
I think some Right wingers, including Trump, wouldn't mind getting into war. I can see them dreaming of conquering North Korean, ousting the Communist rule, and instead of giving it back to South Korea in hopes of a united Korea, they'd claim it as Far East America (FEA), then send all the minorities of the USA over there to make America White again.

Trump (and any other dumbass racist our country shat out): "It's okay, the Mexicans and Blacks and Chinese people will like it over there. There's already minorities living there, it would be like 'Minority Heaven' to them! Sure, we'll tax you twice as bad, but, whattaya gonna do?"
Click to expand...

some? sure. The majority of right-wingers (or at least those that can find the country on a goddamn map) seem to want the exact opposite tho.

I was quite surprised by that.
4Tran said:
China's strategic situation is nothing like what it was in 1950.
Click to expand...

Indeed it isn't. SK is a very important trade partner for China, and it does even more trade with its chinese neighbours than it does with the US. As such, it is fair to assume that neither of those countries would be even remotely interested in allowing US military action to disturb the status quo. Especially since NK has been a rational actor for more than five decades and the current Kim, who has been in charge for five years, has shown himself to be far more rational and predictable than the orange shitstain.
 
A

Abounder

Banned
The birther is leaving the military to their own device, but I just don't see any side risking millions of casualties to sarin gas attacks alone.

The real threat is nuclear terrorism since NK already deals with enemies of the west across the globe, if they're not accepted economically they'll have to make nuke tech their cash crop.
 
D

Dreams-Visions

Member
Abounder said:
The real threat is nuclear terrorism
Click to expand...

I though that the article expounding on the effort that would be required to secure all those bio/chem/nuke materials scattered around NK in the event of collapse and how it would be a nightmare for us (and a huge opportunity for terrorists) was very insightful.
 
Xyrmellon

Xyrmellon

Member
I feel like NK is genuinely frightened of Trumps unpredictability. They have been ready to carry out another nuclear test for a few months and haven't; mainly because the U.S. administration has eluded this could be the trigger for a preemptive strike. Should the U.S. strike? As stated in the article, all scenarios are bad. North Korea has been such a bad actor on the international stage I almost feel it would be irresponsible for the U.S., China and Russia to allow them to develop icbm's. So to answer my question--probably?
 
4

4Tran

Member
Coriolanus said:
Indeed it isn't. SK is a very important trade partner for China, and it does even more trade with its chinese neighbours than it does with the US. As such, it is fair to assume that neither of those countries would be even remotely interested in allowing US military action to disturb the status quo. Especially since NK has been a rational actor for more than five decades and the current Kim, who has been in charge for five years, has shown himself to be far more rational and predictable than the orange shitstain.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd classify North Korea as a rational actor as well. A lot of people seem to like classifying it as a bunch of crazies that will just launch a nuke for whatever reason, but that doesn't line up with what North Korea has done historically.

7he Talon said:
I wonder if Trump will read this article and get ideas.
Click to expand...
Hah! You think that Trump reads! He can barely pay attention to intelligence and military briefs because he doesn't give a damn. Just look at what NATO has to do to get him to stay awake.
 
D

Dreams-Visions

Member
Xyrmellon said:
I feel like NK is genuinely frightened of Trumps unpredictability.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are. They know his type. All bluster on the outside, all bitch on the inside. He might talk a little reckless, but he's not suicidal and he's not going to jeopardize the lives of millions. Further, they know that the US is run by multiple branches of government, most of which are full of stable, non-suicidal men and women. But they can clearly use Trump's rhetoric to further instill their doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

North Korea: two teenage boys sentenced to 12 years of hard labour for watching K-dramas.
45
3K
German Hops replied
Financial Times: How Brad Smith used Microsoft’s $1bn law and lobbying machine to win Activision battle
News Drama Business 2 3
127
8K
Topher replied
The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case
2
85
4K
SHA replied
Baldur's Gate 3 Patch 6.0 is now live
News
24
2K
Hero of Spielberg replied
Citizens Fight Over Feces to Fill Human Fertilizer Quota in North Korea
15
1K
buizel replied
Top Bottom