BG School: Should N. Korea's arms programs evoke a hardline response?

[Zoolander]

Who is anyone to decide what anyone should do? Seems to ME if i see something wrong with the world, with that attitude, ill just let little kids get raped and not really bother, it isnt my place to try and change anything for the better...

Do you really approve of N.Koreas behavior?

Nonono, the U.S. is a nation founded on Christian beliefs. Trying to right the wrongs in the world is against the very foundation of these beliefs, and I for one will not stand for it.

[Elvis]

Who is anyone to decide what anyone should do? Seems to ME if i see something wrong with the world, with that attitude, ill just let little kids get raped and not really bother, it isnt my place to try and change anything for the better...

Do you really approve of N.Koreas behavior?

If your argument is that 'bad things' are happening and we should stop them, then there are tons of examples to point out the hypocrisy in American foreign policy.

It's not simply about countering 'bad things', but doing so within a framework that serves our interests. It's not like we like supporting Saudi Arabia for example. Or that we 'liked' supporting Efrain Rios Montt.

With respect to the 'little kids get raped' meme (you know, 'bad things' that 'we' should stop) - in Central America for example, we knew this kind of thing was going on. We didn't take part in the more gruesome stuff, but we did provide training for counterinsurgency forces. We supplied them with arms for a time. Gave them diplomatic support. Our proxy States (Israel) supplied them with arms when virtually NO ONE ELSE would. Etc.

Here is the collection of declassified CIA documents on Guatemala:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/guatemala.asp

Some important ones:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...docs/04-01.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...docs/05-02.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...docs/08-01.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...docs/14-01.htm

(Source: George Washington University)

There are TONS more. You will see admissions from American diplomats, that shit is bananas and yet, we did not stop it.

That doesn't mean we LIKE that stuff, but I don't really factor in morality (purely) into how we operate in the world.

As Colonel Pat Lang says...."Justice and legalisms have nothing to do with strategic calculation."

EDIT:

Forgot to add this excerpt from Virginia Garrard-Burnett's Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit:

The central dilemma of statecraft, however, was that formal U.S. aid was still contingent upon improvements in human rights, a criterion that was not a high priority within the Reagan administration but which still held credence with much of the U.S. Congress, human rights advocates, and at least some of the American public.

The answer to this problem lay within the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, which set out to obscure the human rights situation behind a scrim of vagueness, claiming that it was virtually impossible to attribute direct blame for abuses on either the Guatemalan army or the Rios Montt government. Kate Doyle, director of the Guatemalan section of the National Security Archive, a private archive made up of declassified U.S. government and intelligence documents that provided the sources for much of this chapter, writes of these efforts:

Read collectively, the declassified documents covering the period of the highest incidence of violence[...]provide a fairly stunning portrait of an embassy determined to deny the facts before it in favor of misleading government statements, a controlled press, and outright lies served by the very army carrying out the carnage.

[ZarakiKujata]

That Foreign Policy article is kind of ridiculous. The first page was basically dribble. "Nuclear weapons aren't a danger because...no one has set any off after WWII and we spent a lot of money and time building and storing them." What the fuck does the fact that we spent a shit ton of money on BUILDING them have to do with their danger? No shit a lot of money was pissed away on building them, but that has absolutely no bearing on the danger of someone else blowing one up in the middle of D.C.

I can't believe he would relate a nuclear attack to 9/11 either. It was tragic and all, but that was only 3,000 people. You cannot possibly compare the two, and even then, is he saying we shouldn't be bothered with trying to stop something even if he is right just because it won't completely destroy our economy?

The last two pages of the article were solid, its just that I almost quit reading because the first bit was so poorly done. His thoughts on Iran and North Korea are pretty good points, but they aren't really anything new even though he talks like he is saying ground breaking stuff. However, anyone studying foreign policy or international politics should already know the answer to this threads question is NO, although it is oversimplifying things.

Yeah, most of the arguments that get made in this recurring section of FP make me lol some times, they had Wolfowitz or somebody else from the Bush administration last summer arguing for the rationality of Bush's foreign policy and how Obama is wrong/needs to be more like Bush, I lol'd quite a bit reading it. But I figured OP would not have been privy to the arguments at the end of the article and that they would be worth their time.

[Correction]

dribble = what babies and drunks do
drivel = baseless nonsense

[Plow]

by "hardline" are we to assume military force?

pretty much this needs to be clarified

personally I was ok with going if they didn't cut the "flexing" bullshit, but the financial approach has been very effective recently


If you're asking if we need to make clear that they're basically going to get Cuba'd through a hardline economic approach willing to go as far as raw embargo, then yes, definitely.


But the military approach needs to be an exclusive "ok nothing is working, and we have to stop what's about to happen" thing.

[ephel]

Who is anyone to decide what anyone should do? Seems to ME if i see something wrong with the world, with that attitude, ill just let little kids get raped and not really bother, it isnt my place to try and change anything for the better...

Do you really approve of N.Koreas behavior?

Doesn't the Taliban feel the same way bout evil America, do they have the right to change things. Don't be misled, everything bad going on in N Korea is happening in the US. Maybe fix your own country then worry bout your neighbor.

And while i don't approve of N.Korea, i've yet to find any country or government that i approve of.

[Meian]

by "hardline" are we to assume military force?

Missed this somehow. From what she said, it seems regarding past diplomacy entirely using sanctions/embargo and such with the "possibility" of military action on the table, which I always assume is on the table. Using those "threats" always given but never acting on.

For the sake of this question what Plow said in his answer is well done in regards to how far willing to go in a "hardline" response.

[test123]

I would love to see the US in conventional warfare with N.korea, if you think you are broke now, just wait until u juggle 3 wars. This will propel the the US foreign policies to its knees.

[Plow]

U.S. won't outright go to war with NK unless they do something that gets China to give us permission, and it will basically be our air and special units supporting their raw ground troops.

China is not going to let us Iraq NK.

[Elvis]

I'd love to see Megan Fox going down on Kate Beckinsale, but I guess we have different priorities in life.

LOL

[Kuya]

The assignment was to go out and ask people.

Oh. Well then we should nuke that shitty country. They don't even have oil.

[ZarakiKujata]

I would love to see the US in conventional warfare with N.korea, if you think you are broke now, just wait until u juggle 3 wars. This will propel the the US foreign policies to its knees.

There won't be any conventional warfare, according to that same issue of FP I linked earlier, N Korea saw wtf happened in iraq/afghanistan and realized wasting its cash to maintain its aging soviet tanks/airplanes was dumb, so instead they enlarged their special forces (they have more trained special forces than anybody in the world including the US and Russia) and taught them all how to make IEDs Iraqi style.

Pyongyang's insurgency will make Fallujah look like a vacation on Miami beach.

[Kuya]

North Korea also set the example that if you have nukes, the US won't mess with you like it did with Iraq. Iran should be paying attention.

[ZarakiKujata]

North Korea also set the example that if you have nukes, the US won't mess with you like it did with Iraq. Iran should be paying attention.

They clearly are. And I mean the example set by Israel/Pakistan/India with their nuclear programs should also be a great lesson for any would be 'rogue' nuclear state.

[Zoolander]

There won't be any conventional warfare, according to that same issue of FP I linked earlier, N Korea saw wtf happened in iraq/afghanistan and realized wasting its cash to maintain its aging soviet tanks/airplanes was dumb, so instead they enlarged their special forces (they have more trained special forces than anybody in the world including the US and Russia) and taught them all how to make IEDs Iraqi style.

Pyongyang's insurgency will make Fallujah look like a vacation on Miami beach.

I don't know too many details about NKs inner workings (what little info there is anyways) but I am curious now that you bring that up, would the soldiers really lead a prolonged insurgency after their government has been taken down? Feel like their motivations might be a lot different than what we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suppose they have been pretty thoroughly brainwashed...

That is a pretty dirty and smart move by NK if what you say is true. However like was also said...if we are going to war with NK it is not going to be another Iraq. We wouldn't go to war with them without China's support (well, I hope to god no one is dumb enough to do such a thing), so it would definitely be a lot less manpower provided by the US. Although those jets and missiles cost a pretty penny...

[Meian]

There is a bit of people saying yes in the vote but not really speaking up besides Plow.

To those who said yes, in what regards exactly? To sanction North Korea? Attack only if China supports it? Or something else entirely?

Was always impressed at their military size but never quite knew how capable they are in a fight.

[ZarakiKujata]

I don't know too many details about NKs inner workings (what little info there is anyways) but I am curious now that you bring that up, would the soldiers really lead a prolonged insurgency after their government has been taken down? Feel like their motivations might be a lot different than what we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suppose they have been pretty thoroughly brainwashed...

That is a pretty dirty and smart move by NK if what you say is true. However like was also said...if we are going to war with NK it is not going to be another Iraq. We wouldn't go to war with them without China's support (well, I hope to god no one is dumb enough to do such a thing), so it would definitely be a lot less manpower provided by the US. Although those jets and missiles cost a pretty penny...

I suspect it is true since I'm sure we can track antiquated soviet tank/plane parts being exported/imported and satellite surveillance to confirm lack of maintenance on them + training camps to make IEDs. All special forces are brainwashed to an extent, and I mean the Baathists that are still the core of Iraq's insurgency in my mind is a clear parallel to this. China would support us if we were to go to war imo since they are growing ever more tired of N.Korea's dick waving and having to deal with N. Korea's border problems. And ofc if we did this I'm sure S. Korea would supply the bulk of the boots on the ground/peacekeepers once the central government was taken down and would thus be bearing the brunt of any N Korea insurgency.

[ephel]

North Korea also set the example that if you have nukes, the US won't mess with you like it did with Iraq. Iran should be paying attention.

N.Korea is like a man buying a million dollar alarm system for an empty shed.

[Kaludneisucks]

stuff:

i agree totally, and understand fully, just thought it should be said..

more stuff

also.. agree.

[Gregorio]

I don't know too many details about NKs inner workings (what little info there is anyways) but I am curious now that you bring that up, would the soldiers really lead a prolonged insurgency after their government has been taken down? Feel like their motivations might be a lot different than what we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Suppose they have been pretty thoroughly brainwashed...

This is a great point. Unlike Iraq/Afghanistan, NK's people don't seem motivated by religion and divine messages from god. They are thoroughly brainwashed that NK is the best country ever and that their leaders are actually god-like...but unlike faith, the things that NK leadership are claiming can be thoroughly debunked and proven just by letting them look at how far South Korea has advanced. [Not to turn to religion, but you since you can't technically prove there is no god, religious people will always lean on that. But you can definitely prove that the standard of living is 100x better a mile across the DMZ]

I know they've been having anti-US and Japan messages driven into their heads their entire lives, but this is a situation where they have literally had no opportunities to see it from the other side. If the shock doesn't kill them, I would think they would come around.