• 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.

BBC: Tremor is detected in North Korea (up: nuclear test conducted)

We've been trying for diplomacy with NK for decades, mostly by just letting them talk the talk and not following up with our supposed sanctions on NK. All NK has done is continued advancement of their nuclear program. You guys do know that Kim Il Sung said if the North Korean regime fails, they will take the rest of the world down with it. They are getting close to being able to have the weaponry to end the world. If we wait too much longer, they will have that capability one day.
 

Nohar

Member
Kim Jung-un is making it really difficult to rein in Trump. Between the nuclear and missiles tests (including the one which got lost in Japan waters), NK is making itself more known and dangerous. Putting Trump aside for a second, I am wondering if nation leaders are still thinking that NK is just putting on a show of bravado, or if NK is becoming genuinely dangerous (for other countries; its population has never stopped suffering).

Kim is escalating the conflict. Trump is so gung ho that he is more than happy to add fuel to the fire (the worst part is that I'm pretty sure that he is just doing this to satisfy his ego; now, other people in the US administration and/or army may want a war, but I have no data to support that hypothesis).

So, here we are: we have two unhinged nation leaders who may or may not lead to the death of countless people. The question remains: who is going to strike first.
Kim wants power and to stay in power. He wants leverage. Attacking another country would be signing his own death warrant. He is crazy, but he is not suicidal (I think... I hope?).
Trump, on the other hand, doesn't really care what happens to NK and its neighbors.
Other nation leaders won't do anything, as it would lead to a global war mess because of China supporting NK in case of war (unless it is China striking NK, but I don't see that scenario happening).

I don't really like where this is going.

If (and it's a pretty big "if") China, one day, announces that it ends all treaties with NK, all hell will break loose. In the meanwhile, I guess that everyone is stuck at glaring at eachother, while reinforcing their weaponry (and, sadly, NK seems to be making significant progress in that area).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
So what should we do?

Nothing.

North Korea is under the control of the Kim family. Their objection is to remain in power and alive. They don't stay in power and alive if they launch a nuclear weapon at a US ally, they die in a horrible nuclear explosion. They don't stay in power and alive if the US invades them, so they have a nuclear weapon to deter US invasion. They won't first-strike, they will second-strike - exactly the same as the US.

This is a stalemate situation. That's the point of MAD. Sometimes 'do nothing' is the only acceptable policy option.

Anyone advocating for a US military invasion is deranged. You're condemning much of the population of South Korea to a horrible death and inviting war with China.
 

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
We've been trying for diplomacy with NK for decades, mostly by just letting them talk the talk and not following up with our supposed sanctions on NK. All NK has done is continued advancement of their nuclear program. You guys do know that Kim Il Sung said if the North Korean regime fails, they will take the rest of the world down with it. They are getting close to being able to have the weaponry to end the world. If we wait too much longer, they will have that capability one day.

But you are gambling with the lives of millions of people. There's no easy solution here.

Nothing.

North Korea is under the control of the Kim family. Their objection is to remain in power and alive. They don't stay in power and alive if they launch a nuclear weapon at a US ally, they die in a horrible nuclear explosion. They don't stay in power and alive if the US invades them, so they have a nuclear weapon to deter US invasion. They won't first-strike, they will second-strike - exactly the same as the US.

This is a stalemate situation. That's the point of MAD. Sometimes 'do nothing' is the only acceptable policy option.

Anyone advocating for a US military invasion is deranged. You're condemning much of the population of South Korea to a horrible death and inviting war with China.

At this point, Japan, Singapore, et al are in danger too.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Exactly. But the longer we wait, the more lives will be lost when the inevitable with North Korea does happen. It's the worst kind of dilemma. I'm sure there's a name for it

There is no 'inevitable'. The Kim regime does not want to use their nuclear weapons for first-strike.
 

Volphied

Member
We've been trying for diplomacy with NK for decades, mostly by just letting them talk the talk and not following up with our supposed sanctions on NK. All NK has done is continued advancement of their nuclear program. You guys do know that Kim Il Sung said if the North Korean regime fails, they will take the rest of the world down with it. They are getting close to being able to have the weaponry to end the world. If we wait too much longer, they will have that capability one day.

Trying for "decades"? You're forgetting that Bill Clinton actually succeeded in persuading NK to freeze their nuclear program... only for Bush to rip the deal apart when he put NK on the "axis of evil" list.

NK took one look at Iraq, took another look at Bush's warmongering, and decided that getting nukes is the only way how to defend themselves.

The current mess is the fault of disastrous Republican policies. Can't wait for Trump to do the same with the Iran deal.
 
South Korea will seek to 'completely isolate' North Korea
Chung Eui-yong, the South Korean President’s chief security advisor, says that South Korea will seek diplomatic measures to “completely isolate” North Korea.

“North Korea today ignored the repeated warnings from us and the international society and conducted a stronger nuclear test than before,” he told reporters.

“President Moon has ordered the most powerful response to condemn [North Korea], along with the international society and decided to seek diplomatic measures such as pushing ahead for an UNSC resolution to completely isolate North Korea.”

From CNN
 

norinrad

Member
So what should we do?

My guess is, he's proposing fire and fury like never seen before. With the US military stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, horn of Africa and keeping Yemen from going all out against the Saudis, they sure could use another war in China and Russia's backyard.
 

Volphied

Member
Exactly. But the longer we wait, the more lives will be lost when the inevitable with North Korea does happen. It's the worst kind of dilemma. I'm sure there's a name for it

It's not "inevitable". Right now the NK leader is more rational than the manbaby in the White House (the cosmic irony!). People are more worried of a US first strike than a NK one.
 
Trying for "decades"? You're forgetting that Bill Clinton actually succeeded in persuading NK to freeze their nuclear program... only for Bush to rip the deal apart when he put NK on the "axis of evil" list.

NK took one look at Iraq, took another look at Bush's warmongering, and decided that getting nukes is the only way how to defend themselves.

The current mess is the fault of disastrous Republican policies. Can't wait for Trump to do the same with the Iran deal.

http://archive.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/04/29/estimate_of_n_korea_weapons_to_rise/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002196.html?tid=a_inl

North Korea was cheating on the deal.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member

They started cheating on the deal in about 2002, from what we know of the situation - after the invasion of Afghanistan and after the increasingly hostile rhetoric of the Bush administration. This is what Volphied was pointing out - there was a period of about 8 years in which North Korea's nuclear development programme, as far as we can know, actually did stop, due to Clinton's negotiating tact. Bush's willingness to engage in regime change in Afghanistan obviously changed the North Korean calculus, and this was further entrenched by Iraq.
 

kyser73

Member
They've made more progress in the last 2 years than they did in the 10 before.

They definitely got help from somewhere.

Not necessarily. The previous 10 years were getting to the point of being able to build a nuke that works reliably. Once you've hit they milestone developing an enhanced fission device is a relatively straightforward step - getting to a full working fusion device will be a bigger ask because the engineering & materials requirements are a big step up from a fission device.

Don't forget as well they don't have to do ANY theoretical work on this. Unlike the US, Soviet & other early nuclear powers, NK has the benefit of having the hard math pathfinding done - their challenge was to understand the theory and gain the engineering expertise required to build, develop the infrastructure (e.g. Fission reactors capable of enriching uranium).
 

Volphied

Member
They started cheating on the deal in about 2002, from what we know of the situation - after the invasion of Afghanistan and after the increasingly hostile rhetoric of the Bush administration. This is what Volphied was pointing out - there was a period of about 8 years in which North Korea's nuclear development programme, as far as we can know, actually did stop, due to Clinton's negotiating tact. Bush's willingness to engage in regime change in Afghanistan obviously changed the North Korean calculus, and this was further entrenched by Iraq.

What's even more horrifying is that the Trump administration is already accusing Iran of "cheating" too, without any proof.

There are trying their hardest to find any excuse to scuttle the deal.
 
They started cheating on the deal in about 2002, from what we know of the situation - after the invasion of Afghanistan and after the increasingly hostile rhetoric of the Bush administration. This is what Volphied was pointing out - there was a period of about 8 years in which North Korea's nuclear development programme, as far as we can know, actually did stop, due to Clinton's negotiating tact. Bush's willingness to engage in regime change in Afghanistan obviously changed the North Korean calculus, and this was further entrenched by Iraq.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tory-lesson-on-the-north-korean-nuclear-deal/

Joel S. Wit said:
In the Clinton administration,"we did know about the DPRK cheating on the highly-enriched uranium front starting in 1998 and had a strategy for dealing with it, namely to confront the DPRK and to use the leverage provided by the Agreed Framework in order to make the solution stick,"
Joel S. Wit said:
"we did know about the DPRK cheating on the highly-enriched uranium front starting in 1998
Perhaps we should be looking into North Korean time travel technology?
 

Volphied

Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tory-lesson-on-the-north-korean-nuclear-deal/



Perhaps we should be looking into North Korean time travel technology?

Joel S. Wit said:
and had a strategy for dealing with it, namely to confront the DPRK and to use the leverage provided by the Agreed Framework in order to make the solution stick,"

Perhaps Bush should have let them do this before tearing the deal appart and threatening them?

Also, I really love how you're quote mining that article. YOu realize that it's essentially arguinf FOR the agreement?

The failure of the Agreed Framework, not the deal itself, led to North Korea building and testing nuclear weapons
 
Perhaps Bush should have let them do this before tearing the deal appart and threatening them?

Maybe so, but we're at the point now where you're no longer arguing "Clinton's negotiations worked," but "Clinton's hypothetical strategy (that we know nothing about and may not have really existed) for mitigating his negotiation's failure surely would have saved it." Which I think proves your initial argument - that negotiation with NK has in reality worked - invalid.

Also, I really love how you're quote mining that article. YOu realize that it's essentially arguinf FOR the agreement?

I am aware. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this particular line of debate though.
 

Volphied

Member
Maybe so, but we're at the point now where you're no longer arguing "Clinton's negotiations worked," but "Clinton's hypothetical strategy (that we know nothing about and may not have really existed) for mitigating his negotiation's failure surely would have saved it." Which I think proves your initial argument invalid.

Except the article you quoted directly said that it was the Bush administration at fault here.

So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and then spent months trying to develop its own policy.

Nevertheless, contrary to Cotton’s statement, North Korea obtained the bomb not because of the agreement, but because the agreement failed.

We’re not going to do a Pinocchio Test here, but Cotton cited North Korea for the wrong reasons. The failure of the Agreed Framework, not the deal itself, led to North Korea building and testing nuclear weapons.
 
Except the article you quoted directly said that it was the Bush administration at fault here.

So what?

You said:

Bill Clinton actually succeeded in persuading NK to freeze their nuclear program

He did not, NK was cheating well before Bush came into power, as per the guy in charge of the whole thing. My source isn't "the article," it's Joel Wit, who straight-up said that the deal was a failure and that it was only dealing with the failure that would have changed in a Democratic presidency (though not in those exact words).
 

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
BBC:

The Korea Times has been speaking to people across South Korea to see how worried they are. The general mood seems to be that there's nothing much new about North Korean belligerence and provocation.

"Kim Jong-un will not use the bomb since that means he will die," says one woman in Seoul.

"It's been worse before but still did not lead to war," says Yoon Tae-jun, 29, from Busan, before adding: "But then again I'm not sure this time because of Trump."

They know what's up. We have always been locked in a state of perpetual sabre-rattling but now that Trump is in the mix it's a bit more alarming. Unlike the NK leadership he is not predictable.
 

brian577

Banned
BBC

Japan's NHK says PM Shinzo Abe and President Donald Trump have spoken on the phone for about 20 minutes. They agreed to work with South Korea to increase pressure on North Korea, it said.

NHK said Mr Abe wants to "calmly analyse a range of information he is receiving, discuss necessary action with other countries, and take all possible measures to protect people's lives and assets"


Sounds about same as when they talked last week after the missile launch.

BBC:



They know what's up. We have always been locked in a state of perpetual sabre-rattling but now that Trump is in the mix it's a,bit more alarming. Unlike the NK leadership he is not predictable.

But unlike Kim, it's very easy to play him if you know how. I imagine world leaders are figuring out the best ways to stroke his ego and get him to agree to anything.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
For all Trump's bravado and tough talk, you know when the shit hits the fan here he's gonna be like

dvdcapture210.jpg
 

slit

Member
There is nothing the US, SK, Japan can do. The only one that can do something about NK is China. The only way you MIGHT persuade China to do something is for the U.S. to to rapidly build even more advanced military tech on the Korean peninsula right in China's backyard to the point that China feels insecure.
 

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
But unlike Kim, it's very easy to play him if you know how. I imagine world leaders are figuring out the best ways to stroke his ego and get him to agree to anything.

The thing with Trump is that his lack of understanding or conviction means he can pull a volte face at any time, as he has demonstrated repeatedly. He can only maintain the facade of a composed world leader for about 12 hours before the real Trump explodes through the mask.

His reaction to the nuclear test will be fascinating. Does he ramp up the "fire and fury" rhetoric, or speak more cautiously? In either case he will probably say something completely opposite straight after.
 

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
So the thing is they cant be allowed to continue advancing their nukes any further. So what will the world do if a state like North Korea has something like a Tsar Bomba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) that can fit on a ICBM?

That doesn't matter. Even the USA and Russia have stepped down on multi-megaton bombs, since deploying several hundred-kiloton ones is more effective. Most of Tsar-Bomba's energy was lost into the space. And if NK already can put hundred-kiloton-tier on ICBM is already over.
 

Volphied

Member
My source isn't "the article," it's Joel Wit, who straight-up said that the deal was a failure and that it was only dealing with the failure that would have changed in a Democratic presidency (though not in those exact words).

I'm glad you mentioned Joel Wit. Here's what he said about the agreement:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/27/north_korea_negotiations_kim_jong_un_agreed_framework/

Joel Wit said:
In the case of North Korea, the Clinton administration’s policy, while not perfect, was a success. And most experts have forgotten — at least the ones I argue with — that it wasn’t just diplomats engaged in a prolonged negotiation that led to the framework. It was the result of the administration using all the tools at its disposal: working closely with allies, constantly nudging China to support our efforts, the threat of extensive international sanctions, beginning a slow process of ramping up military deployments on the peninsula to prepare for war, serious negotiations with the North, and even preparing for a surgical strike on North Korea’s main nuclear facility with cruise missiles if Pyongyang seemed ready to start reprocessing plutonium.

As for the Agreed Framework itself, the arrangement worked while it lasted.

Because of the 1994 agreement, the United States was able to head off the dangerous future foretold in its intelligence estimates. As my colleagues in the U.S. government and I worked to implement the arrangement, it gradually became clear that the North Koreans not only shuttered their operating reactor and allowed Americans to safely and securely store their spent plutonium, but also did nothing to maintain facilities under construction. The North Koreans may have thought maintaining these installations was unnecessary since they would eventually have to be dismantled under the terms of the agreement. But whatever the reason, these buildings became useless piles of junk and were abandoned. When the Agreed Framework collapsed in 2002 before it was fully implemented, Pyongyang only had enough material to eventually build less than a handful of bombs, a far cry from what we had expected without an agreement. That sounds like a success to me. And its large reactor, probably intended to produce power for civilian purposes but could have also produced plutonium for nuclear weapons, was expected to have been completed by the late 1990s. Instead, it became a pile of unsalvageable junk.

Critics who point out that the Agreed Framework failed to stop North Korea’s nuclear program — since Pyongyang was secretly working to produce weapons-grade uranium in violation of the agreement — are right on the facts but wrong on the conclusion. Yes, North Koreans started a small-scale effort to explore uranium enrichment in the 1990s; by late in that decade they had even acquired a handful of centrifuges from Pakistan to produce enriched uranium. But why would they gut an advanced plutonium production program poised to produce large numbers of nuclear weapons to press ahead with a nascent uranium enrichment program that was nowhere near producing fissile material? That would be absurd. Indeed, private experts believe that the North only recently began producing weapons-grade uranium, over a decade since the framework collapsed. Imagine where we would be today if the Agreed Framework had never existed.

Oh look. It seems you've been misinformed about Joel Wit.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Why continue doing tests though? Is it just grandstanding? To what end?

Domestic consumption, the same reason as half of Trump's international grand-standing.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
The logic of the situation is continually for the West to do nothing. They can't attack NK because they'll retaliate on Seoul, but NK can't attack on the West because we'll retaliate on their entire existence as a regime.

But while this "stalemate" removes options on the Western side, NK keeps pushing their nuclear capability further and further. So while they are a laughable subordinate to Western power in theory, they do keep pushing their capability onward. To the point that someday, this stalemate might not be in place?

I can't help but wonder if NK has found some weird niche where they are somehow untouchable... and in that niche they'll push it until the point where they actually could throw their weight around at some future point. Now they're a joke... but in 5, 10, 20 years? They might be no joke.

I've prepared a GIF that shows this example in action (the steamroller is NK and the security guard is the West):

steamroller-scene-o.gif
 
I'm glad you mentioned Joel Wit. Here's what he said about the agreement:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/27/north_korea_negotiations_kim_jong_un_agreed_framework/



Oh look. It seems you've been misinformed about Joel Wit.

I'm so glad you just realized I was quoting Wit, even though I dropped his name about four posts ago, lol. Glad to see you're paying attention.

You're just moving goalposts around. We've gone from:

Bill Clinton actually succeeded in persuading NK to freeze their nuclear program

. . . to:

Pyongyang only had enough material to eventually build less than a handful of bombs, a far cry from what we had expected without an agreement. That sounds like a success to me.

These are just on such hugely different planes of "success" that I'm somewhat convinced that I'm getting trolled. North Korea did not "freeze" their program by any definition of the word. They were cheating on the deal, they were cheating on it well before Bush came into office, end of story.
 

Volphied

Member
I'm so glad you just realized I was quoting Wit, even though I dropped his name about four posts ago, lol. Glad to see you're paying attention.

On the contrary, you don't seem to be paying attention, since you obviously lied when you said that Joel called the deal a failure.

Joel said that the Agreement was a success. Fact. North Korea's plutonium program was frozen. Fact. The uranium "cheating" was a laughable thing, and even Joel said that it only turned into a weapons program decades after the deal collapsed. Fact.
 

Nictel

Member
Why continue doing tests though? Is it just grandstanding? To what end?

Because they want bigger bombs. A 10KT bomb is a way smaller bargaining chip than a 120KT bomb. It also makes first-strikes against the country far more riskier if they can take Seoul with them..

This thing has gotten on far too long (thanks China!) and now it is a really big problem.
 

Xando

Member
NK has claimed a successful hydrogen bomb test before, any word on whether this is the case now?

Considering it's up to 120KT (From 10-20KT as their previous strongest) it's either a really fucking strong bomb or a hydrogen bomb
 
The logic of the situation is continually for the West to do nothing. They can't attack NK because they'll retaliate on Seoul, but NK can't attack on the West because we'll retaliate on their entire existence as a regime.

But while this "stalemate" removes options on the Western side, NK keeps pushing their nuclear capability further and further. So while they are a laughable subordinate to Western power in theory, they do keep pushing their capability onward. To the point that someday, this stalemate might not be in place?

I can't help but wonder if NK has found some weird niche where they are somehow untouchable... and in that niche they'll push it until the point where they actually could throw their weight around at some future point. Now they're a joke... but in 5, 10, 20 years? They might be no joke.

I've prepared a GIF that shows this example in action (the steamroller is NK and the security guard is the West):
There will never be a point where North Korea can survive in an actual war again. It will have the combined power of South Korea, Japan, the US and maybe more against it. There is no winning there, just enough damage and lives lost to not make anyone want to attack North Korea first.

As long as they have a somewhat rational leader, or at least some generals around him to shoot the guy if he goes crazy, nothing will happen.

They are bordered in by Russia, China and South Korea. None of those are countries where they can get away with doing anything against them. Bigger danger is them selling their nuclear knowledge to parties we don't want it sold to.
 
Top Bottom