December 16, 2017

A nearly-nuclear North Korea: Your opinions and ideas, please?

Kim Jong Un North Korea Nuclear

After 24-years of American bribes and pandering, North Korea has crossed a nuclear threshold. I’m interested in your opinions and ideas about this problem.

It happened: North Korea crossed a major threshold on the way to becoming a fully nuclear state:

North Korea has successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles, crossing a key threshold on the path to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power, U.S. intelligence officials have concluded in a confidential assessment.

We can blame presidents from both sides of the aisle for kicking this can down the road — although I feel obligated to point out that, out of the prior three administrations, spanning 24 years, Democrats made bad decisions for 16 years and a Republican made bad decisions for only 8. Does this math matter? I don’t know, but it’s still a fact.

Where does this leave us now? Austin Bay has for some time now been saying that there are really only six possible solutions to the North Korea problem, and he really doesn’t like any of them. It’s a long article, and one I highly recommend. The bullet-points for the six solutions are:

  • Get China to fix things voluntarily.
  • Use “coercive diplomacy” to force China to fix things.
  • Bribe China to fix things.
  • Use ABM’s in the region to intercept even test launches.
  • Kill Kim or oust him, two goals that are hard to accomplish and would have multiple outcomes, not all good.
  • Boom! Blow ’em up which, although Austin Bay doesn’t say so, puts Seoul in the Norks’ cross hairs.

Scott Adams, who has been thinking out of the box like crazy, adds a possible seventh solution: Tell those few Chinese corporations propping up the North Korean economy that we will pay them a sum equal to what they’re earning from North Korea if they stop their transactions with that nation. If they renege on the deal, we’ll destroy those same corporations economically (which is easier than destroying North Korea with either nuclear or traditional weapons). Doing this will truly destabilize North Korea and might cause Kim Jong-Un to back down . . . or cause him to drop a bomb.

READ  Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s New Bureaucracy Czar?

You, my dear readers, are my perfect crowd source. You’re intelligent, well-read, and creative. What is your take on today’s news and what ideas do you have about Trump’s options going forward with a nearly-nuclear North Korea?

About Bookworm 595 Articles

Bookworm came late to conservativism but embraced it with passion. She’s been blogging since 2004 about anything that captures her fancy — and that’s usually politics. Her blog’s motto is “Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.”

5 Comments

  1. Scott Adams’s suggestion is worth a try. Failing that my recommendation is trust in God and keep your powder dry. The Chinese and Russians will react to a preventive attack by the US by coming to NK’s aid. On the other hand if NK attacks us and we retaliate massively they’ll complain but otherwise butt out because they’re realists and it’s what they would do under comparable circumstances.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. With all respect, Dave, I doubt Russia will come to NK’s aid. They can’t afford a war right now,financially or internally. Neither will China as long as we merely decimate NK’s nuclear and military infrastructure (including anything that floats or flies) but don’t invade physically. They can’t really afford a war with America either. I mean, would you attack your best customer? Especially when your own currency is so vulnerable?

    NK’s army, BTW, is large but not all that well equipped. And as we all know, in modern war, troops on the ground without air cover usually become casualties.

    Scott Adams suggestion is a stop gap. It’s worth a shot as long as we realize that these companies aren’t independent actors and take their orders from Xi. And that even if they go along, it still doesn’t take the nuclear toys out of Kim’s hands.

    Trump could use the economic nuclear weapon. Banking sanctions, with no company trading with NK being able to use the U.S. banking system. It worked quite well on al-Qaedah and is one of the few things GW Bush did right in his ‘Great Wah awn Terrahism.’ But again, that doesn’t really solve the problem of Kim having nukes.
    JoshuaPundit recently posted..WoW! Forum: What Do You Think Will Be The Major Tech And Science Breakthroughs In The Next 10 Years?My Profile

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. We don’t have the human intelligence to conduct the sort of raid you’re suggesting, Rob. The practical alternatives are to engage in massive bombing in the hope that we’ll take out the NK offensive capability which, contrary to your claims, in the absence of a North Korean attack on us will indeed draw China and Russia into the conflict, or we can wait. Right now waiting seems like the better choice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Russia and China just voted, along with a unanimous Security Council to approve of major sanctions on the Norks. What the tells ME is that Kim is out of friends and has become more trouble than he’s worth.

    I see no reason to think they would get involved in a conflict neither of them are prepared for and where both countries stand to risk far more than the Norks are worth to them. That’s particularly true of Russia, but the Chinese would almost certainly stay out as long as we don’t physically invade NK.

    Respectfully, I also question your assertion that we ‘don’t have the intelligence’ to destroy North Korea’s military capacity. We know where their nuke facilities, missile launching sites and the reactor are, as well as their conventional military bases, just like we do Pakistan and Iran’s.

    In any event, South Korea’s NIS has a reputation for competence.

    The chief problem is the nuclear fallout, but tactical nukes could cut that down quite a bit.

    The issue is a real simple one. Three incompetent presidents either bribed of ignored NK’s nuclear program, We already know that the Norks dealt with Iran, Dr. Khan in Pakistan and with Basher Assad in Syria (the reactor the Israelis thankfully destroyed so that ISIS never got their hands on it).

    We also know that the Norks are NOT rational actors. Do you have any doubts that if this continues, they wouldn’t sell nukes to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS or any number of bad actors?

    The idea of bombing North Korea and inflicting casualties on a people who have already suffered so much is not something I take lightly. But there is no other feasible solution that takes these dangerous toys out of Kim’s hands. And given the choi8ce of NK lives or far more U.S. causalities eventually it is far better to settle this issue once and for all, at a time of our choosing.
    JoshuaPundit recently posted..WoW! Forum: What Do You Think Will Be The Major Tech And Science Breakthroughs In The Next 10 Years?My Profile

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Comments are closed.