Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for speaking the truth. I just need to add that nuclear warheads do not acknowledge geo-political divides &, with Mr. Kim & Trump behind the wheel as it were, both chest thumping neanderthals (no offence intended to our ancestors), any miscalculation could just as easily wipe out millions of people in the southwest of British Columbia, Canada. If Seattle, Portland - or Hawaii - can be in harm's way, then so can Vancouver, Victoria, the Lower Mainland of BC, Vancouver Island...
Please remember your neighbours, friends & allies in Canada when speaking about nuclear disaster aimed at the west coast of the US. It doesn't stop at customs!
Please remember your neighbours, friends & allies in Canada when speaking about nuclear disaster aimed at the west coast of the US. It doesn't stop at customs!
18
Now that this administration has seen 'wag the dog' worked with its Syria missile strike, those of your in the media need to up you game. The next time an embarrassing fact gets revealed, such as related to Russian election hacking investigations, the temptation will be great to distract by taking a military option. Don't become uncritical sycophants just because we blew up somebody that no one likes.
8
NK is the small tough guy in the bar with an attitude and a chip on his shoulder, daring the bigger guys to fight him. He'll get his way eventually, and will suffer a beatdown, but he'll hurt someone in the process.
5
Are we trashing the idea of negotiations? The April 10, 2017 issue of The Nation tells us that N. Korea has nukes now because W reneged on an agreement made with N. Korea in 1994 by Clinton whereby they would abandon their nuclear reactor program in exchange for our help in building light water reactors for electrical power generation AND neither would no longer harbor hostility toward the other. But then W put N. Korea on his "Evil Axis" list and so we are where we are today. The S. Koreans seem to feel that things will work out if we don't start anything and, clearly, S. Korea will be the biggest loser if anything military is done by us. Shouldn't we be more respectful of their views?
9
I once stumbled across the videos by Moranbong Band on YouTube. This all-female orchestra, said to be Kim Jong-un's favorite, performs a variety of patriotic songs like "My Country is the Best," but I find this video of "Without a Break" both revealing and chilling. While the obviously-talented women play their song, the screen in the background displays scenes from a DPRK missile test while the assembled Party faithful clap, cheer, and dance in the aisles. The video shows clearly that the target of the missile is the United States.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADN0H6MREHA
Somebody should tell them that there is little need for an encore after we see the entire planet destroyed.
Oh, and I notice that sanctions did not prevent these ladies from importing Roland keyboards and synthesizers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADN0H6MREHA
Somebody should tell them that there is little need for an encore after we see the entire planet destroyed.
Oh, and I notice that sanctions did not prevent these ladies from importing Roland keyboards and synthesizers.
7
Deterrence (Mutual Assured Destruction) worked for 40 years against the USSR. It still works.
So why would it not work against North Korea?
So why would it not work against North Korea?
5
Where is Dan Quayle when we need him? "An aircraft carrier is a terrible thing to lose!"
We knew President Trump and his administration lacked know how, but who knew they lacked know where?
Or does our Distractor in Chief think that diversionary tactics will work just as well on Mr. Kim as they have on his supporters within the US?
A happier thought: If Kim were ever to fling a passel of ICBMs toward America's West Coast, we would not need an expensive missile defense system. President Trump could pull another diversion from his bag of tricks and the North Korean missiles would all be deflected into the Pacific Ocean, far short of their targets.
We knew President Trump and his administration lacked know how, but who knew they lacked know where?
Or does our Distractor in Chief think that diversionary tactics will work just as well on Mr. Kim as they have on his supporters within the US?
A happier thought: If Kim were ever to fling a passel of ICBMs toward America's West Coast, we would not need an expensive missile defense system. President Trump could pull another diversion from his bag of tricks and the North Korean missiles would all be deflected into the Pacific Ocean, far short of their targets.
2
As usual, a very thoughtful column from Mr. Kristof. He should be our Secretary of State.
8
This beautiful, beautiful planet of ours is run by a ship of fools.
32
No president should play chicken. obama failed miserably with assad. Despots are the most dangerous of opponents.
4
Don't be alarmed, dear readers; in Mr. Kristof's next column he will return to making excuses for our so-called president and urging all of us to be kind and respectful to his supporters. If we haven't already been vaporized by nukes.
10
I keep wondering is any republicans are reading the same articles and watching the same news that I am? This is so disturbing. Donald Trump's ineptitude, lack of experience, complete void of diplomacy, and inflated ego are possibly steering us towards a nuclear game of chicken. Talk about an achievement for the first hundred days! Impeaching him soon would actually give your party a stronger chance to recover from the damage he's done. I can't believe there's no a single one of you in Washington who'd like to be known as the voice of reason.
24
Mr Kristof needs to say what he would recommend if China can't or won't restrain North Korea, and in 2 to 4 years they have developed ICBMs and nukes to put a top them? Mr Kristof himself, makes the case that the North Koreans are not necessarily restrainable or rational. If the latter is true, what is the logic in waiting for them to develop the ability to destroy the West Coast?
18
Nightmare situation, nightmare Kim and Don, so what could possibly go wrong?
Maybe that Iran is percolating back in the news this week or, that ever the statesman, T won't get the Queen's golden carriage he's demanding for his fall visit to the UK even after getting his Burger King outfit dry cleaned.
Maybe that Iran is percolating back in the news this week or, that ever the statesman, T won't get the Queen's golden carriage he's demanding for his fall visit to the UK even after getting his Burger King outfit dry cleaned.
9
Heaven help us then. That psychopathic grifter could care less how many people die. And then there's Kim, too.
40
I'm more concerned about NK selling a nuke or giving one to terrorists than actually using it themselves.
19
There has never been a good solution to the North Korea problem. You can't deal w/an adversary who doesn't want to deal. And the leadership there has proven that they care nothing for human life. They would sacrifice ALL of their population, aside from those that support the military, if it come to that. Frankly it does seem that war now might be better than war later, when their nuclear arsenal is bigger and their ability to deliver it reaches globally.
9
I believe Trump will make a preemptive strike before his first 100 days are up, in an attempt to shore up his ratings. Just as he saw how profitable it was to stir up the uneducated with populist blather, now that he has snorted a few hits of military cocaine, he can't get enough. In an interview just a few days ago (I can't remember where I saw or heard it but it certainly struck me as ominous) he said something that has somehow slipped under the media's radar... he made reference to something big happening in the next 11 days or so.
5
Here is a man who has just threatened to punish the poor's access to health care if the Democrats do not give in to his demands; why would he not sacrifice the lives of South Koreans and some of our young men and women because he never loses and would drag everyone into hell with him rather than lose? DT's mantra of America First does not include even our friends abroad; they too like everyone else is expendable as long as he wins. And he will because his companies would then pick up real cheap real estate where the devastated will have no choice.
11
Don't play his game of getting distracted by this, urgent as it is, and dropping press investigation of his ties to Russia. I think a lot of this is a deliberate diversion tactic.
11
"North Korean missiles are built using some Chinese parts." Clearly, then, we should pressure China to stop selling North Korea those parts.
4
Sad that the representative of who/what the US values are is being represented by a blowhard who thinks thumping his chest and playing with devastating toys is manly. I would rather Kim and Trump had a knitting contest! But what can we expect from a reality show host whose crowning moment is when he gleefully shouts "You're Fired!" He is like a stand-up comic who spits out a one-liner and then pauses for adoring applause showing how clever he is. I am upset by the pundits who keep "analyzing" his "strategy". He doesn't have one. Can anyone name ONE actual policy that he promoted during his campaign? When applying for a job, one usually has to come to the interview with a resumé showing previous experience that is in line with the job. Additionally, an applicant is often questioned about how they have or would perform during difficult situations. And there is a background check (tax returns, maybe?). Trump was more like a pretty teen wearing a short skirt interviewing with a panel of sex-starved men. "Believe me", "You know", "I, I, I, I", and somehow America bought it. I would hope, at least that some Trump voters have buyers' remorse. He may very well get us into exactly the kind of situation Kristof details simply because he is not prepared to do the job. And you don't expect someone to learn on the job if they are being expected to pilot the plane you and your family are passengers on.
7
Trump from all indications believes that showing weakness is not acceptable to him. He may at some point be "encouraged" by Sec. Mattis to dial down the rhetoric, but Mr Kristoff and the thoughtful crowd ( me too) have legitimate concerns. I was in the Army Reserve during the 60's and our unit was sure we were headed for either Cuba or Berlin or oblivion. I'd choose Cuba or Berlin happily today.
3
I recall the Cuban Missile Crisis when I lived in NYC. That gorgeous October morning walking to the subway from my (not then known a) SoHo) apartment. Entering the Columbia campus, which glistened. Looking out the window of the Journalism Library where I then worked at the beauty of the day. Okay, one of the students studying in the library did burst into tears and flee the room. The joy in the instant! This euphoric moment is all I have! For years I was thrown into a carpe diem mode focused solely on the pleasure of the moment. Gradually over time I came out of that. But now? Maybe the only sensible thing to do is eat, drink, and be merry. To hell with tomorrow, for tomorrow is likely to be hell.
5
North Korea cares about one thing, i.e. perpetuating its regime, and its threat of launching nuclear weapons against whatever targets it can reach is its one deterrent against any outside agent trying to effect such a regime change. The only way North Korea would ever abandon its nuclear weapons program is if it could somehow be convinced that we would never try to be that agent of change.
So yesterday Pence was asked whether the United States should help liberate North Koreans from oppression as we had once liberated East Germany from communism. His reply: "“Well, I think that’s a discussion for another time.”
I don't think that is the warm feeling that North Korea was looking for.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/04/19/pence-the-u...
So yesterday Pence was asked whether the United States should help liberate North Koreans from oppression as we had once liberated East Germany from communism. His reply: "“Well, I think that’s a discussion for another time.”
I don't think that is the warm feeling that North Korea was looking for.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/04/19/pence-the-u...
3
A trump war is inevitable. He has a visceral need to make his bones to prove his strength. As my Dad once commented about the mood in late 1930s Brooklyn, "Everyone knew war was coming. All you had to hear was Hitler's voice on the radio."
6
The U.S. needs a coherent strategy to go
forward against North Korea. A team effort is needed with Japan, China, India,
Australia, and the Philippines . To proceed individually, would be
a disaster for the U.S. At this time, Trump's foreign policies are weak, and
disjointed and have brought us to the edge of war.
forward against North Korea. A team effort is needed with Japan, China, India,
Australia, and the Philippines . To proceed individually, would be
a disaster for the U.S. At this time, Trump's foreign policies are weak, and
disjointed and have brought us to the edge of war.
If the Chinese really don't want a destabilized NK let them remove Kim now or we will do it ourselves. Enough is enough.
2
If you have a family, let them move to Seoul with you, so that they can appreciate your heroism firsthand. Or to Manila, if you choose to wait a few hours. Or perhaps we should all rethink this matter?
5
One option I have seen discussed elsewhere is using the US Navy to shoot down North Korean missiles when they are tested. This would provide a way to show the North that we are willing to use military force against them without being very provocative.
We should also update the casualty estimates for Seoul in the event of a North Korean attack. Since the 90s we have deployed GPS guided rockets, artillery shells and missiles which should enable us to very quickly destroy the Northern artillery if it is ever used. Also, two decades of rust, lack of training and lack of food have probably seriously eroded North Korean military capability.
North Korea does have nukes now, but they will have serious problems delivering them to a target. Also, the regime is probably not suicidal and they will be even more keen to avoid an escalation than the US.
Before doing anything else we need to ensure that the State Department, Pentagon and NSC are adequately staffed. We need the best people in place to handle this very tricky situation.
We should also update the casualty estimates for Seoul in the event of a North Korean attack. Since the 90s we have deployed GPS guided rockets, artillery shells and missiles which should enable us to very quickly destroy the Northern artillery if it is ever used. Also, two decades of rust, lack of training and lack of food have probably seriously eroded North Korean military capability.
North Korea does have nukes now, but they will have serious problems delivering them to a target. Also, the regime is probably not suicidal and they will be even more keen to avoid an escalation than the US.
Before doing anything else we need to ensure that the State Department, Pentagon and NSC are adequately staffed. We need the best people in place to handle this very tricky situation.
11
I have read and followed just how difficult the North Koreans are to deal with.
But in the end should we just drop the charade and offer whatever payout it would take to denuke or freeze their weapons program. You have pointed out that the economic cost could be over a trillion dollars. I believe base on the economy of both South Korea and Japan, the cost could be much higher and even more significant when you factor in the cost of fighting a war. The ripple effect in world markets could surpass the economic cost of any war previously fought. Why not find the payoff price that would motivate them to change course. Rebuild their economy, supply unlimited food to feed their people set up a Putin sized bank account in Switzerland for the Kims. Any price would be less costly in treasure and life than fighting this war.
But in the end should we just drop the charade and offer whatever payout it would take to denuke or freeze their weapons program. You have pointed out that the economic cost could be over a trillion dollars. I believe base on the economy of both South Korea and Japan, the cost could be much higher and even more significant when you factor in the cost of fighting a war. The ripple effect in world markets could surpass the economic cost of any war previously fought. Why not find the payoff price that would motivate them to change course. Rebuild their economy, supply unlimited food to feed their people set up a Putin sized bank account in Switzerland for the Kims. Any price would be less costly in treasure and life than fighting this war.
2
A war with N. Korea would put America back to work. We could draft all those unemployed coal miners and rust belt Trump voters under 40. Those over 40 could get jobs in munitions plants once their opioid addictions are cured. Military would have a chance to blow off all that equipment that's been gathering dust.
Other than nuclear decimation of S. Korea and Japan, win-win for everybody.
Other than nuclear decimation of S. Korea and Japan, win-win for everybody.
4
Mr. Kristoff has completely lost his mind. He has no solution for the North Korean issue, yet somehow thinks waiting and pressure will somehow work even though it has never worked with North Korea. They just continue their path to a dependable ICBM. I guess we should wait until they have one so they can toss some of their dozen or so nukes our way. There is a solution, however. China is now a rich nation and its people are finally enjoying prosperity while the government is enjoying stability. China will engage North Korea with a surreptitious pre emptive strike before Mr. Trump will. It won't be nuclear and it won't entail millions of Chinese rushing across the border. One day the world will learn Kim Jong-un had an accident.
3
North Korea isn't going to strike first. Their main goal is the preservation of the Kim dynasty and they know that war means an end to that. We're going to wind up with another MAD situation, much like we've had with Russia for decades. Then you hope for the regime's internal collapse.
1
Trump voters: when 1 million South Koreans and/or Japanese are vaporized in an attack by North Korea, will you please let every one of those lost souls lie on your conscience? Thanks.
11
North Korea is like a rattlesnake. Leave it alone and it won't bother you. Threaten it and it will strike.
6
So the North Koreans would kill the other half of their family in South Korea, just to spite us? Doesn't say much for the family to begin with, if that's what you're saying.
2
North Korea is trouble no matter who is President. I truly think that Mr. Kristof's "...only option left..." is exactly that. Unhappily, no matter who is President it seems very nearly unattainable. I can only hope that someone in our government can see this solution as essential to our national security and work to attain what seems so far out of reach.
1
I think the best strategy is to do what it takes, diplomatically and economically, to buy time ... until a better solution presents itself.
2
If the N Koreans launch another missile to test it, why not launch an anti-missile to test whether it can actually shoot it down?
4
If anything goes wrong with Trump's actions on N. Korea, you can bet he'll blame it all on Obama.
Meanwhile another Electoral College flaw is re-exposed. The most populated state that voted against Trump, denied their choice by the EC for the better CIC for the sake of the prairie voters, is in the crosshairs of a N. Korean retaliation.
But to Trump, I think he cares not, for nuking California will simply mean fewer non-Trump voters come 2020. The heartland's Trump voters will re-elect him because he kept them safe.
Let's not forget the millions of people in S. Korea, though I'd bet he already has.
Trump's foreign policy behavior is playing out like a cruel, real life version of a movie called, "The Expendables."
Meanwhile another Electoral College flaw is re-exposed. The most populated state that voted against Trump, denied their choice by the EC for the better CIC for the sake of the prairie voters, is in the crosshairs of a N. Korean retaliation.
But to Trump, I think he cares not, for nuking California will simply mean fewer non-Trump voters come 2020. The heartland's Trump voters will re-elect him because he kept them safe.
Let's not forget the millions of people in S. Korea, though I'd bet he already has.
Trump's foreign policy behavior is playing out like a cruel, real life version of a movie called, "The Expendables."
8
Might be a long shot, but I'd announce a billion $ or so fund to go to any N. Korean generals who would overthrow Kim. Paranoid as he is, he might start killing some of them to make sure the rest remain loyal, and then to save their own skins, a coup d'etat might be possible.
2
The Chinese might be more willing to act if we (the U.S. and South Korea) made it clear what wouldn't happen if the North Korean regime collapsed: there would be no U.S. forces and no Korean forces except for police stationed within 75 miles of the Chinese border.
5
Nick,
Your article left this reader hanging. Your against a preemptive strike against North Korea, but your concerned about their ever increasing threat,You end your article by asking Heaven to help us, should we decide to strike first, how about Heaven helping us to eliminate North Korea”s nuclear capacity.
God helps those that help themselves, I believe that was uttered by the Huns when they attacked & razed Rome, ( my own assumption ).
We have only two alternatives, the first is to sit down with that little fat crazy kid, I’m quoting McCain, & try to convince him that he going down the path of total annihilation, or we can blow him and his nuclear weapons to smithereens.
Your article left this reader hanging. Your against a preemptive strike against North Korea, but your concerned about their ever increasing threat,You end your article by asking Heaven to help us, should we decide to strike first, how about Heaven helping us to eliminate North Korea”s nuclear capacity.
God helps those that help themselves, I believe that was uttered by the Huns when they attacked & razed Rome, ( my own assumption ).
We have only two alternatives, the first is to sit down with that little fat crazy kid, I’m quoting McCain, & try to convince him that he going down the path of total annihilation, or we can blow him and his nuclear weapons to smithereens.
4
Here's a thought; What if South Korea offered the Trump Organization a prime piece of real estate in downtown Seoul? It might induce our trigger-happy boy-President to actually learn where the Korean Peninsula is located, and it might reduce the odds he would start a war that would jeopardize one of his properties. Otherwise I agree the options are pretty grim.
7
There is something which we can do: Write your representatives in Congress to co-sponsor H.B. 669 and S. 200, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017. This legislation would require the president to get a declaration of war from Congress before using nuclear weapons against an adversary who has not first used nuclear weapons against us or our allies. In other words, a first strike with nuclear weapons could not be initiated by our president with Congress concurring.
We should have had this law in place for decades. I have read that when President Nixon was in a depressed state, medicated with alcohol, he greatly troubled those around him when he said that he could go into his office, enter the code, and in a very short time seventy million people would be dead.
The world has been lucky. Our luck may be about to expire.
We should have had this law in place for decades. I have read that when President Nixon was in a depressed state, medicated with alcohol, he greatly troubled those around him when he said that he could go into his office, enter the code, and in a very short time seventy million people would be dead.
The world has been lucky. Our luck may be about to expire.
5
If, as Kristof says, an American military response against North Korea might lead to a catastrophic war, then, it seems, unless the U.S. or its allies are struck first by the North, the best course of action is strategic patience. Regimes can implode from within. This is what happened to the Soviet Union, for instance. By applying external pressure, financial and others, to the North, as well as an information campaign inside its borders, the regime, in time, will likely collapse.
hoping the regime will implode hasn't worked out so well has it? And what do you think their nuke capability might be in 20 years while we're waiting for NK to implode.
And what do you think will happen if the current regime implodes? Most likely, there will be a new one -- still with nukes and not much else going for them than threatening the US and US allies.
And what do you think will happen if the current regime implodes? Most likely, there will be a new one -- still with nukes and not much else going for them than threatening the US and US allies.
Mr. Kristof calls for the United States to "apply relentless pressure together with China." But China has no interest in relentlessly pressuring North Korea. China enjoys having North Korea as a thorn in the United States' side. For years, I've been listening to U.S. officials and public commentators talk about getting China to rein in North Korea. Folks, it will never happen. China will occasionally pump the brakes when North Korean escalations are getting out of hand, but China wants to keep North Korea, under the Kim government, as a geopolitical cudgel against the United States.
Furthermore, relentless pressure on North Korea by the United States raises immense risks of war. And Gen. Luck's warning of one million dead is a colossal understatement. If Kim Jong-un believed his regime was about to fall, he would launch nuclear missiles at Seoul, Tokyo, American bases in South Korea and Japan, Guam, Honolulu, etc. That could start a thermonuclear World War III, and end the human species.
The only solution is diplomacy. North Korea's missiles are on who-knows how many vehicles in deep mountain tunnels, so a preemptive American/Allied strike would not be guaranteed success. We must offer Kim a big enough carrot — lifting sanctions, international legitimacy, free trade, an ironclad guarantee that he won't be removed from power, etc. — to get him to end his nuclear program. It would be a deal with the devil, and a tough sell to boot. But the alternative is nuclear annihilation.
Furthermore, relentless pressure on North Korea by the United States raises immense risks of war. And Gen. Luck's warning of one million dead is a colossal understatement. If Kim Jong-un believed his regime was about to fall, he would launch nuclear missiles at Seoul, Tokyo, American bases in South Korea and Japan, Guam, Honolulu, etc. That could start a thermonuclear World War III, and end the human species.
The only solution is diplomacy. North Korea's missiles are on who-knows how many vehicles in deep mountain tunnels, so a preemptive American/Allied strike would not be guaranteed success. We must offer Kim a big enough carrot — lifting sanctions, international legitimacy, free trade, an ironclad guarantee that he won't be removed from power, etc. — to get him to end his nuclear program. It would be a deal with the devil, and a tough sell to boot. But the alternative is nuclear annihilation.
5
Many if not most of the commenters here simply want to bash Trump. They'd bash if he did nothing, call him a Putin puppet or insinuate he has developed a bro-crush on Xi. Those comments don't add much.
This is a serious situation that has been botched by the last 3 presidents. But it is one that has intensified during Obama's term with the ascension to power of the unstable Kim Jong-un. And because we know their nuclear capability is real and growing and they are highly motivated, we need to act now or face the consequences of NK having a formidable nuclear power capable of killing millions in the region and in the US.
Trump is acting as any responsible president would and as Obama failed to do. Sometimes in life and foreign policy there are no good options, but the worst option we have is to do nothing.
The only good defensive reason (at least in the foreseeable future) for NK to have nukes is if they fear a Chinese takeover, and that is a stretch. For a number of reasons, SK and Japan would not invade NK and neither would the US. In short, the only reason for NK to have nukes is for offensive purposes. For any rational actor the fear of being obliterated upon use of nuclear weapons is sufficient deterrent. But Kim Jong-un is unstable and could be in power for another 40 or 50 years. We have no guarantee that he won't use nukes. And in fact, neither does China, so they might be more motivated than we think to take NK's nukes away.
This is a serious situation that has been botched by the last 3 presidents. But it is one that has intensified during Obama's term with the ascension to power of the unstable Kim Jong-un. And because we know their nuclear capability is real and growing and they are highly motivated, we need to act now or face the consequences of NK having a formidable nuclear power capable of killing millions in the region and in the US.
Trump is acting as any responsible president would and as Obama failed to do. Sometimes in life and foreign policy there are no good options, but the worst option we have is to do nothing.
The only good defensive reason (at least in the foreseeable future) for NK to have nukes is if they fear a Chinese takeover, and that is a stretch. For a number of reasons, SK and Japan would not invade NK and neither would the US. In short, the only reason for NK to have nukes is for offensive purposes. For any rational actor the fear of being obliterated upon use of nuclear weapons is sufficient deterrent. But Kim Jong-un is unstable and could be in power for another 40 or 50 years. We have no guarantee that he won't use nukes. And in fact, neither does China, so they might be more motivated than we think to take NK's nukes away.
Ralphie: Yes, lots of T critics would complain no matter what he does. He has a way of making even legitimate decisions sound like egotistical bad choices. But, that doesn't mean that any choice he makes is a good one, nor that other choices in the past (as you suggest) were all bad ones. It's also true, there are no (or few) good options. Other presidents, including the muscular Reagan and Nixon were unable to muster the courage to put S. Korea and Japan at risk with a preemptive strike. Obama was no worse. But, Obama solved this dilemma in Iran with a negotiated freeze. Maybe that will unravel in the future. But, it maintains our security for now at least. Perhaps that would work in N. Korea too, especially if China joins the cause. The problem with Trump is that any decision he makes may very well be hasty and based on his ego - rather than the facts on the ground. In that environment, we all have a great deal to fear. Would you trust your 8-year old with the war trigger? That's what we're doing now.
4
"Trump is acting as any responsible president would..."
Sorry Ralphie, a responsible president doesn't say he is sending a navy strike group unless he is actually doing it. Trump basically just gave the NK regime a reason to doubt him the next time he says he is serious. That is pretty much the playbook for how you start a nuclear war. Unless the other side thinks you aren't bluffing, they'll strike first.
You talk about how the only reason for NK to have nukes is for offensive purposes, but that is simply unreasonable. The US has thousands of nukes and the US hates NK. Therefore, if I were a North Korean, it makes sense that I would want to at least be able to hurt the people who are going to destroy me, even if I don't win. We have many guarantees that Kim Jong-un won't use nuclear weapons. They include the number of years he's been in power while possessing nuclear weapons but without having used them. They include his father doing the same. They include the generally good assumption that the other side is mostly made up of people and not homicidal/suicidal maniacs. And, yes, we have the guarantee given by our ability to strike back. But, a lot of those guarantees go into the toilet when our "commander-in-chief" of our much bigger force starts acting childish and lies to the entire world about what the US is doing.
Sorry Ralphie, a responsible president doesn't say he is sending a navy strike group unless he is actually doing it. Trump basically just gave the NK regime a reason to doubt him the next time he says he is serious. That is pretty much the playbook for how you start a nuclear war. Unless the other side thinks you aren't bluffing, they'll strike first.
You talk about how the only reason for NK to have nukes is for offensive purposes, but that is simply unreasonable. The US has thousands of nukes and the US hates NK. Therefore, if I were a North Korean, it makes sense that I would want to at least be able to hurt the people who are going to destroy me, even if I don't win. We have many guarantees that Kim Jong-un won't use nuclear weapons. They include the number of years he's been in power while possessing nuclear weapons but without having used them. They include his father doing the same. They include the generally good assumption that the other side is mostly made up of people and not homicidal/suicidal maniacs. And, yes, we have the guarantee given by our ability to strike back. But, a lot of those guarantees go into the toilet when our "commander-in-chief" of our much bigger force starts acting childish and lies to the entire world about what the US is doing.
2
We assume that the US is the only country that should have nuclear weapons because only the US and our allies are responsible enough not to use them. Perhaps other countries do not share our beliefs and are scared witless by our unprepared half-baked former Game Show Host, Casino and Resort Owner, Wrestling Promoter, Beauty Pageant Impresario now President. It is unlikely that we will be able to slow the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons until we manage to limit the Office of the Presidency to fully baked candidates only. Until then, we should let North Korea build whatever weapons they want: Kim Jung-Un cannot be any crazier than we are.
5
If there is to be war this time (hopefully not!) there should also be a war tax levied and a draft.
Just to show the resolve, toughness and commitment of the United States, eh.
Just to show the resolve, toughness and commitment of the United States, eh.
1
"...One North Korean once introduced me to another by saying, “The Chinese government doesn’t like Kristof,” and then beaming, making clear this was a high compliment."
That's it? You're asking us to believe that China has less influence on the peninsula then we think because "one North Korean" tried to flatter you in front of another?
Classic Kristof, sad.
That's it? You're asking us to believe that China has less influence on the peninsula then we think because "one North Korean" tried to flatter you in front of another?
Classic Kristof, sad.
I fear N.K. selling Nukes to terrorists. That would be a big cash cow for N.K.
1
Let us remember that not only is Trump reckless and unfit to serve as President, but his reckless exploits serve as a grand smoke screen for a wholly Fascist agenda. The bottom line in the WH is an agenda that will undermine immigrants, LGBTQ people, women's rights, the poor and their urgent needs, and equality for all Americans. This is not a dress rehersal for the rise of the Right. This is the rise of the right. Our goal as Americans must be twofold:1. Impeachment 2. A Democratic Party that has a long -term plan to re-take the WH and the House and Senate with a humanitarian agenda that serves all people, not just some of the people.
7
"This is a lousy option, possibly unattainable, and it isn’t a solution so much as a postponement of one."
And what if your "lousy option" doesn't work, as seems likely? A postponement of a solution is not a solution, as you say, Nicholas. Don't you have an obligation to come up with something that actually is a solution before criticizing Trump on this matter? Or would you permit North Korea to achieve a deliverable nuclear bomb?
And what if your "lousy option" doesn't work, as seems likely? A postponement of a solution is not a solution, as you say, Nicholas. Don't you have an obligation to come up with something that actually is a solution before criticizing Trump on this matter? Or would you permit North Korea to achieve a deliverable nuclear bomb?
2
There is only one viable solution, and that is regime change. That requires war, which will probably be catastrophic. It's Hitler and Imperial Japan revisited, albeit on a smaller scale (for now).
1
Don't blame Trump for something that previous governments have turned a blind eye to; no amount of talking will stop North Korea from developing nuclear bombs where its sole aim is to hit the USA mainland. What do you do? Just sit there and wait for it to happen and have the North Korean leader kill 9 out of 10 USA citizens. Trump has to make some hard decisions against the rogue state. Read this article, titled, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un threatens US with a 'super-mighty preemptive strike'
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=118...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=118...
We have 12000+ nuclear weapons. North Korea knows we would turn North Korea into ashes if they launched one nuclear strike. We have demonstrated in Iraq, Syria and Libya that if North Korea gives up their Nuclear and Chemical warfare capability we will invade them, install a puppet regime ,and assassinate their leaders. North Korea has nothing to lose by developing their weaponry and everything to lose by giving their weapons up.
1
Following on Ken Pomeranz' recent piece ("On China and North Korea," NPR Commentary, April 18) that off-handedly revealed that key materiel and parts are leaking from China to North Korea, please use your platform to spread the word that China can do more to tighten its border and tighten technology transfer -- even non-State-Owned -Enterprises can be controlled by China's leadership, who have crafted admirable state implementation capacity when and where they want to use it. The USA can use pressure to help them discover it is in their interest to control dangerous or dual-use technology.
2
Excellent thought provoking piece. I am glad that you are on the beat. Do you know if anyone in State, the WH, DOD, is thinking of alternative to war. It is difficult for me to accept that these people, who appear to be decent, are inherently evil. I think we need more celebrity type interviews of this young leader so we can get a fix on how he sees the world.
North Korea could be a great market for western products, services and entertainment that make up the modern lifestyle. I don't know where we got the idea that we could make the world a better place if we could just deliver enough explosive force and intense heat to destroy all living things.
North Korea could be a great market for western products, services and entertainment that make up the modern lifestyle. I don't know where we got the idea that we could make the world a better place if we could just deliver enough explosive force and intense heat to destroy all living things.
Perhaps there's a way. It is assumed that China will do the US bidding and try to force Kim to abandon his nukes. But why would Chinese do this ? Why not to offer them a real incentive ? Allow the Chinese to claim the South China see and remove the US Navy from the coast of China and they'll find the way to force Kim to behave. After all, it was through the coast of China that the West (Britain and USA) subjected China to the "century of humiliations". Quite properly, Chinese do not trust US. If there is a deal it has to benefit all sides. Make it plain that when the Kim regime collapses the US will not move in to the Chinese border. They fear that what happened after the fall of communism in Europe will be repeated in Korea, i.e. the US will move up to the very border of China.
China cannot force Kim to back down short of war. They can slowly strangle NK, but Kim will lash out "Samson style"
If "relentless pressure" is our only option, then we should all have a very clear understanding and agreement about exactly what we mean by relentless pressure. We don't. By "we," I mean virtually every grouping of people: world leaders, political scientists, NYT readers, etc.
I agree with your thesis, Mr. Kristof, but it's useless without a detailed plan of action and specified goals for all implementation stages. Simply saying "apply relentless pressure" isn't significantly different from saying "Somebody should do something!"- essentially: "Somebody *else* should [BLACK BOX]."
Does "relentless pressure" mean cutting off all trade between North Korea and the rest of the world? Blockading them entirely? Dropping propaganda from planes? Encouraging a mass uprising?
Should we try to foment a coup? That seems like the best plan in my amateur opinion. We need to remember, however, that the U.S. doesn't exactly have a sterling record of achieving or long-term objectives by backing coups in other nations. Who do we hope will take over? Do we have any contact with them currently? I hear that the PRK spends a lot of time thinking about coups and how to prevent them.
Are we willing to try any untested methods? How about a campaign of mockery and humiliation- to try to get the regime out of their comfort zone, and provoke them into making strategic mistakes? But then what? Send in the Seals? Launch a massive cyber-blitzkrieg to fry every circuit we can?
Do tell.
I agree with your thesis, Mr. Kristof, but it's useless without a detailed plan of action and specified goals for all implementation stages. Simply saying "apply relentless pressure" isn't significantly different from saying "Somebody should do something!"- essentially: "Somebody *else* should [BLACK BOX]."
Does "relentless pressure" mean cutting off all trade between North Korea and the rest of the world? Blockading them entirely? Dropping propaganda from planes? Encouraging a mass uprising?
Should we try to foment a coup? That seems like the best plan in my amateur opinion. We need to remember, however, that the U.S. doesn't exactly have a sterling record of achieving or long-term objectives by backing coups in other nations. Who do we hope will take over? Do we have any contact with them currently? I hear that the PRK spends a lot of time thinking about coups and how to prevent them.
Are we willing to try any untested methods? How about a campaign of mockery and humiliation- to try to get the regime out of their comfort zone, and provoke them into making strategic mistakes? But then what? Send in the Seals? Launch a massive cyber-blitzkrieg to fry every circuit we can?
Do tell.
China and/or the US can very easily provoke a war to bring down NK. One way to provoke a war to to choke NK to death by cutting off the oil, the banking links, and imposing a full naval blockade. But to do this requires first preparing the area for war, which means evacuating foreign nationals from SK and preparing SK citizens to relocate to underground shelters.
1
Why didn't you mention the option of a peace treaty, since the first Korean war only ended with an armistice? Even the North wants a peace treaty.
1
What does a peace treaty accomplish by itself, with nothing more?
No matter what the US or China do to North Korea they will never give up their nuclear weapons as Kim Jong un sees it as a critical asset for the survival of his regime and the only deterrence to the United States and other nations who they see as threats, If Kim were to adhere to the demands of denuclearization it would make him look weak, the bomb which is the ugliest weapon of war is prominent in North Korean propaganda so it would be disasterous for him to kneel. Kim Jong un has a weak power base and he must look strong to his people, there is no other way but forward. The only option is regime change which could come at a terrible price.
Has anyone considered pursuing a tit-for-tat policy? The US would announce that each time NK conducts a test (missile or nuclear weapon), the US will capture or destroy one ship in the NK navy (or similar, isolated target). The idea would be to respond every time, but also to respond in a very limited yet still painful way. The goal would be to halt testing and get to the negotiating table.
The weaknesses of this idea are clear. First, they strengthen the NK regime by confirming their narrative to their own people. Second, there is the risk of escalation. But note that the dynamics of tit-for-tat also encourage de-escalation too. If they stop, we stop.
The US should simultaneously announce that our policy objective is a peace treaty that guarantees the demilitarization of the entire Korean peninsula and that we explicitly disavow the goal of regime change.
The weaknesses of this idea are clear. First, they strengthen the NK regime by confirming their narrative to their own people. Second, there is the risk of escalation. But note that the dynamics of tit-for-tat also encourage de-escalation too. If they stop, we stop.
The US should simultaneously announce that our policy objective is a peace treaty that guarantees the demilitarization of the entire Korean peninsula and that we explicitly disavow the goal of regime change.
This is a plausible approach with many adversarial regimes, but has NEVER been followed with NK since the Armistice, out of fear of provoking a disproportionate response.
I think that ultimately, in the future, the human race as a species, is destined to destroy itself. An excerpt from the Planet of the Apes movie - Cornelius: [reading from the “Sacred Scrolls” of the apes to Taylor and Dr. Zeus] “Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.” Keep in mind that this movie is from 1968, before a lot of the current environmental problems that exist today, but when there was a threat of global nuclear war, hence the destruction of New York City and the Statute of Liberty scene at the end. Dinosaurs were the dominant species that inhabited and ruled the planet Earth for about 175 million years, until the mass extinction caused by an asteroid. Modern man, or Homo Sapiens, just in the short span of 2,000 years of the Christian calendar have already destroyed much of the environment by over population, pollution, rapidly depleting all of the earth’s natural resources, including clean air and water, and now face climate change, which may doom the human race and make the planet uninhabitable (for people). We may not even last for a few more centuries, but the planet will continue to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun goes Supernova.
4
I am rather surprised that no one has evoked the frightening possibility of a secret defence pact between either China and North Korea or even with Russia in the event of an American attack. Don't forget how the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop treaty was instrumental in the invasion of Poland during the Second World War. An unknown unknown which could trigger assured destruction of the United States. But I don't think this has ever crossed the scrambled mind of Trump for a second...
Extremely unlikely, especially for China, which values the US as its principal trading partner, as well as values trade with SK and Japan. NK has become an extremely dangerous thorn in China's side, with no upside potential.
I don't think this has crossed the mind of any reasonable person because it would be foolish for the North Koreans to keep it a secret even if China and Russia wanted to. You might as well posit a secret defense pact between the US, North Korea, and Iran in the event of an India invasion of Pakistan. I mean, no one knows about that. It could exist!
Donald Trump's options for shouting 'victory!' during his presidency are decidely limited. I sincerely believe that Trump will strike both North Korea and Iran one after the other as part of another major form of political deflection and morbid means of forging 'patriotic' unity in the United States against external enemies.
He totally lacks the finesse to take into consideration the collateral effects of pre-emptive strikes against Pyongyang and Tehran, and I don't think he really cares.
He totally lacks the finesse to take into consideration the collateral effects of pre-emptive strikes against Pyongyang and Tehran, and I don't think he really cares.
3
The two most frightening attributes of our President are his abject ignorance of all matters great and small and his insatiable ego, which pathetically requires hourly feeding. War may come as a whim, a mistake or a reflex, but there is no man more ill-suited to lead a nation or have the world's destruction at his fingertips.
13
Build an iPhone factory outside Pyongyang. Cheap, efficient Asian labor and the generalizing pacification of worldwide capitalism. If you can't baffle 'em with brilliance, dazzle 'em with bullspit
What a pity Bill Clinton couldn't "But screw your courage to the sticking-place"
and take out the North Korean Nuclear program 20+ years ago instead of getting snookered into a lousy deal that the Norks used as cover for their weapons program.
It's up to the Chinese now. Just how badly do they want to avoid a possible nuclear war on their border? Sanctions are a joke, the leader of N. Korea is a murderous madman who couldn't care less about the people who suffer under his Hell spawned rule.
and take out the North Korean Nuclear program 20+ years ago instead of getting snookered into a lousy deal that the Norks used as cover for their weapons program.
It's up to the Chinese now. Just how badly do they want to avoid a possible nuclear war on their border? Sanctions are a joke, the leader of N. Korea is a murderous madman who couldn't care less about the people who suffer under his Hell spawned rule.
2
This column makes no sense.
Mr. Kristof blaming Trump for the madman in North Korea.
You may as well blame Churchill for World War II because he didn't appease Hitler the way Baldwin and Chamberlain did.
Mr. Kristof blaming Trump for the madman in North Korea.
You may as well blame Churchill for World War II because he didn't appease Hitler the way Baldwin and Chamberlain did.
4
I fear for my country. Now the South Koreans are excessively peeved at Trump for suggesting he'd got it from Prez Xi that Korea used to belong to China. This just after the global discovery that the formidable American 'armada' steaming for the Sea of Japan is actually in the Indian Ocean. (Kristof's "adults in the room," including military spokesmen and Maddog Mattes themselves promulgating a kind of Trumpian PR ruse.)
Scarier still: the strike on Assad along with the Mother Of All Bombs come at a time when Trump desperately needs quickening success to bolster sagging ratings, a real tour de force. A gruesome bloodbath in the Far East where Trump singlehandedly saves America from its gravest nuclear threat since 1962 would silence all critics and fill the bill for his histrionic proclivities. A cosmic existential struggle for survival with the civilized world ultimately victorious thanks to a Trumpageddon of Wagnerian proportions would be right up his alley.
Never mind what we're going to get right up our own....
Scarier still: the strike on Assad along with the Mother Of All Bombs come at a time when Trump desperately needs quickening success to bolster sagging ratings, a real tour de force. A gruesome bloodbath in the Far East where Trump singlehandedly saves America from its gravest nuclear threat since 1962 would silence all critics and fill the bill for his histrionic proclivities. A cosmic existential struggle for survival with the civilized world ultimately victorious thanks to a Trumpageddon of Wagnerian proportions would be right up his alley.
Never mind what we're going to get right up our own....
1
Nearly all of the analysis I have read (some of the comments on this site aside) fail to take into account Kim's evident motivation, which is survival of his country, administration and family. What strategy can the US adopt that would leverage that motivation with the objective of eliminating Kim's nuclear aims (which, in light of his motivation, are not irrational at all)? Unlike Iran, North Korea does not appear to have an offensive, external objective. Although Kim's regime is as repugnant as they come, allowing him, his regime and his country to survive is preferable to jeopardizing the survival of the world.
2
There are strong indicators that NK's ultimate motivation is to sever the US/SK defense pact, so that NK can dominate SK through intimidation. NK does not need nukes for deterrence; that was achieved decades ago with the placement of the heavy artillery and short-range missiles along the DMZ.
With North Korea there is risk in all options, including doing nothing. The risk has increased steadily since the end of the Korean war and will continue to increase as they continue developing NK's nuclear capability and missiles. The risk for South Korea spiked dramatically years ago when NK installed its missiles on the border pointed at Seoul. The risk will spike dramatically again when NK has reliable ICBMs equipped with nuclear warheads capable of reaching America. Are you willing to see America pursue the "lousy option" while the risk continues to escalate? Isn't that too high risk, too dangerous, even irresponsible?
Your option is ".....to apply relentless pressure together with China.....". What is "relentless pressure"? How do you apply it? How do you get China to apply it? I think you do what Trump is doing, namely (i) send in the armada (and actually do it), (ii) increase American military capability in South Korea including deployment of nuclear weapons and more missile defense,(iii) cut off supply to NK of anything which can be cut off by America and its allies, (iv) seek the cooperation of China to the extent necessary to forcer a resolution, and if China will not cooperate, America and its allies must sanction China. Just as America must accept China's "one China" policy, China must accept America's requirements for North Korea.
Your option is ".....to apply relentless pressure together with China.....". What is "relentless pressure"? How do you apply it? How do you get China to apply it? I think you do what Trump is doing, namely (i) send in the armada (and actually do it), (ii) increase American military capability in South Korea including deployment of nuclear weapons and more missile defense,(iii) cut off supply to NK of anything which can be cut off by America and its allies, (iv) seek the cooperation of China to the extent necessary to forcer a resolution, and if China will not cooperate, America and its allies must sanction China. Just as America must accept China's "one China" policy, China must accept America's requirements for North Korea.
1
what happens when Donald finds out that some world leader thinks he really speaks for America? everyone else, including the Navy, just goes about their business regardless.
Sir,
What makes you think that "one million casualties and $1 trillion in damage", "missiles that can reach Tokyo", radioactive contamination, etc. are deterrents against President Donald Trump taking military action against North Korea? The devastation would be in Korea (North and South), Japan, even China, ..., all of them economic competitors of the United States. The devastation would make America (relatively) great again.
What makes you think that "one million casualties and $1 trillion in damage", "missiles that can reach Tokyo", radioactive contamination, etc. are deterrents against President Donald Trump taking military action against North Korea? The devastation would be in Korea (North and South), Japan, even China, ..., all of them economic competitors of the United States. The devastation would make America (relatively) great again.
1
You could well be onto something. When the WTC was taken down, Trump's first reaction was to point out that he now owned the tallest building in lower Manhattan. So the destruction of South and North Korea and Japan would indeed make the US better, in Trump's "mind."
How can anyone be shocked that today Trump is more predisposed than ever toward reckless military action in Korea, or elsewhere? Duh! All the ingredients for the age-old recipe are there: Maniacal ego (desperately requiring approval, praise, supremacy) as Commander in Chief + approval ratings in death spiral + under heightened threat (of exposure of Russia collusion connections) + U.S./World press contemptuous him and his "policies". All that was wanting was the magic. secret sauce: Syrian air strike + newly found credibility (formerly critical press calling strike "Presidential")! We can thank the press for making the path to credibility (however temporary) so dangerously, irreversibly clear to a man incapable of restraint, complexity, or taking a longer view. They have confirmed dramatic military action as his go-to PR tool. God help us all!
1
With respect to the possibility of a preemptive strike, what scares me the most are the views recently expressed by Lindsey Graham. He indicated that a preemptive strike would probably affect thousands of South Koreans and Japanese, but at least it would have no affect on the American mainland. I could not believe this statement; launch a war and who really cares about 'them' as long as we are not terribly affected. If Trump also holds these views, we are in real moral trouble.
Furthermore, why is the North building these weapons. Any rational person should understand that they are doing that for defensive, not offensive reasons. They are trying to use deterrence just like we and the Russian did and currently do.
North Korea does have a terrible and tyrannical government, but they are not stupid and they want to survive.
Furthermore, why is the North building these weapons. Any rational person should understand that they are doing that for defensive, not offensive reasons. They are trying to use deterrence just like we and the Russian did and currently do.
North Korea does have a terrible and tyrannical government, but they are not stupid and they want to survive.
1
I agreed with this sentiment until I saw video of their military band concert yesterday which featured an imax backdrop featuring an American city in flames.
Try to distinguish propaganda from reality.
We are painting North Korea as run by a madman, and that is being used to set up the American mindset for a justifiable preemptive strike. I truly believe that the North would never attack us first because they know it would lead to total annihilation of North Korea.
Remember Iraq a the super-evil Saddam Hussein; but no WMDs. North Korea does have such weapons, but who have they ever attacked since the termination of the Korean war?
We are painting North Korea as run by a madman, and that is being used to set up the American mindset for a justifiable preemptive strike. I truly believe that the North would never attack us first because they know it would lead to total annihilation of North Korea.
Remember Iraq a the super-evil Saddam Hussein; but no WMDs. North Korea does have such weapons, but who have they ever attacked since the termination of the Korean war?
1
Heaven help us all...Trump is as crazy at his N. Korean counterpart.
17
Kim Jong-un is the perfect PR pokerface for Trump to reignite the 'war = $' philosophy. We won't go to war because NK is a threat. We go to war to make money, sadly, while the nation believes we're 'under threat'. Why does Trump want to build up the military? $. That's all the guy cares about – plus his name BIGLY in the history books. Buckle up world. Here we go. A madman in NK is nothing compared to a $ obsessed madman in USA.
Good piece by Nicholas Kristof on Trump versus Kim Jon-un possible OK Corral gunfight.
An important point, however, is left out in the analysis. That is, what are the consequences for Americans of a Korean peninsula war turning nuclear.
After all, W./Obama wars in the Middle East have impacted negatively in the American society's cohesion. It increased and deepened the social divide which, in turn, made Trump's rise possible.
An important point, however, is left out in the analysis. That is, what are the consequences for Americans of a Korean peninsula war turning nuclear.
After all, W./Obama wars in the Middle East have impacted negatively in the American society's cohesion. It increased and deepened the social divide which, in turn, made Trump's rise possible.
5
Why don't we just allow North Korea continue on its path toward perfecting both their nuclear warhead and ICBM capabilities - just like the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations did. Once North Korea finally has a working nuclear destruction system on line, it will be interesting to see if the media, the NYTs in particular, just succumbs to their standard view of "Oh well, now that they have the bomb the world will just have to live with it." Churchill, Truman, Kennedy, etc., all made tough decisions when confronted with the pure evil that threatened the democratic existence of the free world. Trump certainly does not belong anywhere near the aforementioned gentlemen, but North Korea is certainly cut from the same malevolent fabric as confronted those leaders. Under no circumstance can North Korea be allowed to develop warheads/missiles that can reach America. Diplomacy to the max, with our allies and China. If that fails, then some very tough, but necessary decisions, will have to be made.
3
"If that fails, then some very tough, but necessary decisions, will have to be made."
I always love this line of thinking. So, tell me, when will diplomacy have failed? When the North Koreans test the rocket engine for the missile? When they actually test the missile itself? Maybe when they load a nuclear payload on it but haven't set up the launch system yet? Perhaps before their targeting computers come online but after they provide power to the facility that runs the computers? Maybe after they've been able to strike the US for 10 days but not more than 20 days?
Basically, the end result is the same as Iraq (and as it is with any conflict when framed this way): we go to war without being attacked and kill millions of people as a result. But, ho hum, it's fine because "diplomacy failed".
I always love this line of thinking. So, tell me, when will diplomacy have failed? When the North Koreans test the rocket engine for the missile? When they actually test the missile itself? Maybe when they load a nuclear payload on it but haven't set up the launch system yet? Perhaps before their targeting computers come online but after they provide power to the facility that runs the computers? Maybe after they've been able to strike the US for 10 days but not more than 20 days?
Basically, the end result is the same as Iraq (and as it is with any conflict when framed this way): we go to war without being attacked and kill millions of people as a result. But, ho hum, it's fine because "diplomacy failed".
How about signing a peace treaty with North Korea formally ending the Korea war? North Korea is perpetually prepared for war because the Korea war is not technically and formally over. The armistice was just a truce, an agreement to stop fighting for a certain time. What North Korea wants is a peace treaty and hence guarantee of security. To North Korea, the aggressor is the US. Kim is not irrational. On the contrary, he is acting to preserve the survival of his regime. The burden is on the US to recognize this and negotiate accordingly.
4
Oh come on! Do you really think Kim is fretting over the difference between an armistice and a truce?
Mr. Moderate,
Formally ending the war has been one of their demands for at least 20 years now. So, yeah, they probably care a little about it.
Formally ending the war has been one of their demands for at least 20 years now. So, yeah, they probably care a little about it.
To my knowledge nobody has combined the two bombing events of last week with North Korea 'deterrence' if attacked by Trump. With so much artillery, above ground and in bunkers somewhat below, there's a place for MOABs to be used near the border by Seoul to suppress retribution toward South Korea which would be practically uninvolved in such military attacking. If America has 10 such bombs it could protect the South Korean capital by immediately destroying that threat with cruise missiles filling in any gaps.
Then the threat toward the rest of the South and Japan could be deterred with missile defenses shooting down the rogue nation's attempts to attack the two non-combatant nations. I may be too imbued with Tom Clancy novels but is our offensive shock-and-awe attack and defense shield so impotent that much jeopardy would emerge if Trump loses his mind like Kim? I'm against any attack but with China also impotent thus far, we can surmise that Kim will proceed apace until physically stopped and/or replaced. Attack seems inevitable if nobody in the north is in their right mind and deposes the wacko and we cannot wait to be attacked.
Then the threat toward the rest of the South and Japan could be deterred with missile defenses shooting down the rogue nation's attempts to attack the two non-combatant nations. I may be too imbued with Tom Clancy novels but is our offensive shock-and-awe attack and defense shield so impotent that much jeopardy would emerge if Trump loses his mind like Kim? I'm against any attack but with China also impotent thus far, we can surmise that Kim will proceed apace until physically stopped and/or replaced. Attack seems inevitable if nobody in the north is in their right mind and deposes the wacko and we cannot wait to be attacked.
The bombs are delivered by cargo plane. They will not survive above NKP airspace unless all NKP aircraft and ADA are eliminated. Not plausible or practical.
The 11-ton MOAB can only be dropped one at a time from a military cargo plane. How many sorties would it take to suppress even a fraction of the 12,000ish fortified artillery pieces in range of Seoul? Perhaps we should just nuke the place instead, eh? Shock and awe, indeed.
1
As my reply states for Mford, we have a potent military with defensive missile destruction capability and North Korea has no air force. We don't lose planes over Syria or Iraq either. I have more faith in the military than you scary types.
Trump, blundering into North Korea nightmare will not happen. However the failure of Truman, that got us into N. Korea and spread over to Vietnam is still a nightmare. It left over 140,000 Americans dead, debilitating war debt, Social Security being used, STILL, to pay for war and nothing ever solved is the recurring nightmare of the Democrat Folly.
Just a side note, Truman probably wouldn't be a Democrat today. The coalitions that make up the Democratic and Republican parties basically switched parties in the 50's and 60's after Truman's time.
How's the search for other inhabitable planets going?
6
Other presidents have kicked the can down the road, and in this case Trump can really claim that he is left with "a mess." If there is a war on his watch then there will be plenty of blame to go around.
1
A generally good column but I think it misses a major point.
Trump is for Trump only, whether it is clan or brand. If war breaks out the hotel business is going to be down and the so-called president has many of them even though some are only in brand names but enough of them he actually owns, with lots of debt. So to line his pocket he will refrain from tossing missiles at N Korea. Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and those who cannot fight back, yes, he will toss missiles at them, But N Korea that can fight back and started a war that will cut into the hotel business? Never.
Having said that, the fault does not lie totally or even minimally with Trump. It lies in the fact the the Truman/Eisenhower administrations' failure in getting the job done decades ago. Remember the saying: In war there is no substitute for victory? Yes Truman and Eisenhower did buy "Peace in Our Time"!
Trump is for Trump only, whether it is clan or brand. If war breaks out the hotel business is going to be down and the so-called president has many of them even though some are only in brand names but enough of them he actually owns, with lots of debt. So to line his pocket he will refrain from tossing missiles at N Korea. Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and those who cannot fight back, yes, he will toss missiles at them, But N Korea that can fight back and started a war that will cut into the hotel business? Never.
Having said that, the fault does not lie totally or even minimally with Trump. It lies in the fact the the Truman/Eisenhower administrations' failure in getting the job done decades ago. Remember the saying: In war there is no substitute for victory? Yes Truman and Eisenhower did buy "Peace in Our Time"!
Why not invite him here for a conference with other nations. A hand extended beats a bomb, his or ours. Haven't we had enough of of bombs.....
5
True, it would be catastrophe if North Korea unleashes it's piles of artillery, nukes and all their formidable soldiers. The repercussions won't be limited to South Korea and Japan. The whole of Far East will be affected from the fallout. Kim is an absolute loon who will not think twice about burning down the building when he is living in it. But unfortunately, we have Trump as President who leaps before he thinks. Both, Kim and Trump have short fuses and both do not think about consequences. The only difference is that Kim has nothing to lose and sacrificing his people will not make a difference to his conscience as he is already doing that. As for Trump, he has to worry about his gilded palaces, never mind Americans on both coasts who will be affected. He will most certainly not be thinking about his allies in the Far East as he sees them as just our parasites. The Syrian missile and the mother-bomb attack was just optics, just bark, no bite. Too many people have gotten seriously miffed and bringing out the coat of arms. Trump may just be bluster and if he thinks that North Korea could be another opportunity for optics, he could'nt be more wrong. Assad is a declawed cat in comparison to Kim who is a fanged, suspicious, suicidal leopard. The slightest injury and he will pounce. After all a leopard does not change it's spots. Come to think of it, so is Trump!
1
Considering that the first 100 days is usually when new presidents get things done, I still waiting to get "tired of all the winning".
Trump is looking in several regions for war, not just North Korea. He has blundered with Iran, with Afghanistan and especially Syria. He is making noise at Pakistan too.
Military might is an extension of his manhood and he is eager to show it off, as he was during his campaign, with unseemly references to his anatomy. He's in a bigger role now, so he has bigger surrogates to prove his manhood.
I agree with you: he's very scary.
Military might is an extension of his manhood and he is eager to show it off, as he was during his campaign, with unseemly references to his anatomy. He's in a bigger role now, so he has bigger surrogates to prove his manhood.
I agree with you: he's very scary.
3
Is Mr. Kristof suggesting that the answer is to wait until NK has dozens of nuclear missiles aimed at Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles? Somehow that doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
1
And to follow up, once NK has dozens of missiles aimed at the US west coast, why would China think that's a bad thing... for China. Does China really have any national interest in restraining North Korea?
China has actually more to fear that the US from a nuclear NK. For one, those very same missiles can one day be pointed at Beijing and Shanghai. Also, any nuclear exchange over NK will cause contamination to surrounding areas, including China, Russia, Mongolia, Japan, Taiwan and the Phillippines.
Many of the arguments and statements heard and seen about how it was that Trump managed to get himself elected contained the idea that the people were fed up with the old style politics and the way things were done and wanted someone who was not part of the old system.
And now you know how that age old saying originated.
Be careful what you wish for,
And now you know how that age old saying originated.
Be careful what you wish for,
3
This is an extremely sobering editorial. Reading between the lines, it strikes me that the editorialist knows deep down that a devastating war with NK cannot be avoided, unless the Regime somehow collapses without firing a shot. Even an "agreement" which "verifiably" freezes the nuclear program in exchange for a suspension of sanctions is impossible because NK will never agree to an inspections regime, which is necessary to ensure compliance. Otherwise, it's just another kick of the can down the road. NK has always moved forward with its goal of having a credible ICBM capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to North America. Nothing has stopped them in a quarter of a century, and (short of organic regime change), there is nothing to give hope that this trajectory will change. I have a very deep suspicion that no US Administration is willing to run the risks attendant with NK having a robust ICBM delivery system, because the risks posed by such a capability are deemed to be very different than those posed by Russia and China. The US believes that NK wants not just to continue extorting aid, but indeed to coerce the US to abandon SK. That changes the balance of power and won't be acceptable. Therefore, I see little prospect for a peaceful resolution to the growing crisis. How will the US help prepare SK and Japan for war which has a great likelihood of going nuclear? The world may yet see another tragedy . This new, slow Cuban Missile Crisis may end very badly.
And where does Russia fit in all this? Even if China and the US team up to squeeze NK, wouldn't Putin happily embrace Kim Jong-Un as he has Assad?
Perhaps Russia could be persuaded to join in Mr. Kristof's proposed solution of applying sanctions with the aim of forcing North Korea to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for relief. I know, probably unrealistic. How deliciously ironic, though, if it worked and Trump were to perform another of his patented flip-flops by declaring a "Major Win" in making a deal patterned after the one President Obama did with Iran.
Perhaps Russia could be persuaded to join in Mr. Kristof's proposed solution of applying sanctions with the aim of forcing North Korea to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for relief. I know, probably unrealistic. How deliciously ironic, though, if it worked and Trump were to perform another of his patented flip-flops by declaring a "Major Win" in making a deal patterned after the one President Obama did with Iran.
Yes Russia would join in. Russia was the reason Truman entered into North Korea over 60 years ago and is still a mangled, undone mess.
1
The United States, Trump included, has little chance of a peaceful resolution as long as China allows items like oil and technical parts to move across its border with the Kingdom of Kim. Even then, who's to say the monarchy won't double down and continue as best it can? Maybe it's time to resort to MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. If North Korea attacks Los Angeles, their country receives a dozen American warheads in exchange.
Of course, that doesn't prevent a blackmail scenario where the North tells the USA to ignore a second invasion of South Korea or risk American cities being bombed. MAD would only truly work if South Korea had their own independent nuclear deterrent, but that would likely be an extreme irritation for nearby China. Then again, North Korea wouldn't even exist without China's support after their bungled first invasion, so maybe living with a nuclear South Korea so close by is a fitting punishment.
Of course, that doesn't prevent a blackmail scenario where the North tells the USA to ignore a second invasion of South Korea or risk American cities being bombed. MAD would only truly work if South Korea had their own independent nuclear deterrent, but that would likely be an extreme irritation for nearby China. Then again, North Korea wouldn't even exist without China's support after their bungled first invasion, so maybe living with a nuclear South Korea so close by is a fitting punishment.
1
If history matters and the way I read it, Japan had occupied Korea for decades and those forces surrendered to the Soviet Union on or about the end of the second world war. There was a supposedly temporary agreement between the US and the Soviets regarding the immediate future of Korea after which the US straight away occupied the South. The war was an attempt by the North to get the US out and unify what the North considered their nation. The North was supported by China when the US made gains into the North after almost being defeated in the early days of the war. The US has maintained Nukes in the region since almost day one which has been a threat to the North and any other nation that opposes US domination.
The US removed all nukes from SK in 1991.
A question that I cannot shake: In a highly militaristic country like N. Korean, does this puerile toad, Kim Jong-un, really have the devoted support of him military leaders? Would they really allow to take action that would result in their destruction?
1
Drop smart phones all over North Korea and park a satellite in stationary orbit with free WiFi service.
24
now that is an idea worth investigating. Let Samsung donate 20 million Galaxys (and no, not the ones that burst into flames), drop them all over the country Korean language-ready with all the apps needed to get to outside information / news and let the games begin. If there were a way to incorporate satellite phone ability into these devices that would be even better. Include the South Korea telephone directory on the phone so they could call long lost relatives.
2
You have emotional and unstable leaders running North Korea and the U.S.
The only answer is to have them shut up and ignore each other. The chance of that happening is zero. China will do nothing. The Koreans cannot get a missile off the launch pad. The Korean threat to world peace is zero if everyone will just shut up!
The only answer is to have them shut up and ignore each other. The chance of that happening is zero. China will do nothing. The Koreans cannot get a missile off the launch pad. The Korean threat to world peace is zero if everyone will just shut up!
3
Snickering at the emptiness of his threats? Donald is on a roll, at being assured. What did the accomplish by attacking Syria, without the Constitutionally-required approval. Oh yes, he then tried to suggest that it was covered by the ancient War Powers authority...for Iraq!
The, dropping a 22,000 pound bomb on terrorist caves. As usual, when danger lurks, Jihadists stay in that region, because they can just cross over into Pakistan, and return aerator the danger passes. Donald, when you live i n a cave--rather than a Tower--you can usually find alternative accommodations quite easily.
Oh, and the 36 enemy body count, I know where such numbers come from. But, tele Donnie, what was the cost per KIA?
And then, you are off to the races. Again, are you going to attack North Korea, under the UN Resolution of 1950? Congressional Authorization? And to top it off, YOU didn't even know that the task group was in the wrong ocean--your Regime hadn't changed its orders. At least Kim knows he's a lunatic?
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The, dropping a 22,000 pound bomb on terrorist caves. As usual, when danger lurks, Jihadists stay in that region, because they can just cross over into Pakistan, and return aerator the danger passes. Donald, when you live i n a cave--rather than a Tower--you can usually find alternative accommodations quite easily.
Oh, and the 36 enemy body count, I know where such numbers come from. But, tele Donnie, what was the cost per KIA?
And then, you are off to the races. Again, are you going to attack North Korea, under the UN Resolution of 1950? Congressional Authorization? And to top it off, YOU didn't even know that the task group was in the wrong ocean--your Regime hadn't changed its orders. At least Kim knows he's a lunatic?
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
As Brando remarked in Godfather One, when he hailed together the heads of the five families, " How did things ever get like this " Good policies bad policies take your political preference. North Korea , Syria, Yemen, Iran, Russia, are all hand me downs from Obama. Remember Obama got elected the 1st time blaming everything on W.
1
for Dan Green, this has been going on for farther back than the Obama administration. You really have to go back to Eisenhower and look at what all presidents have tried to do since then. The devil is in the details and they are incredibly complex.
This is an alarmist column bordering on the insulting, not to Mr Trump, rather to the reader.
1
Another way to go would be to read the article by Joel Wit in the NY Times today. He is an expert on North Korea and makes good suggestions.
"Heaven help us" indeed.
The mouse that roared has developed some teeth. Can't be sure how big those teeth are, but they look impressive from here.
Maybe we could induce Un and t rump to have a hot dog eating contest for bragging rights to who is the baddest dude.
Then the citizens of both nations could get a good night sleep.
The mouse that roared has developed some teeth. Can't be sure how big those teeth are, but they look impressive from here.
Maybe we could induce Un and t rump to have a hot dog eating contest for bragging rights to who is the baddest dude.
Then the citizens of both nations could get a good night sleep.
3
No meat on those well picked over bones. We need a new war, one where there's some good booty, one with well seasoned people already on the ground nearby, a helicopter ride away, ready to "administer". The green zone II already on the drawing boards Good morning Iran. Just a minute while we wrap this one up already in progress. If I'm not mistaken the Times has just declared it at 83% that we'll have a humdinger with Teheran. They're seldom wrong. In the checkbook department.
Here in the upcycling department we've just turned our 125,000th hummer into plows. The crews seem remarkably content doing something useful. Get back to work, all of you.
Here in the upcycling department we've just turned our 125,000th hummer into plows. The crews seem remarkably content doing something useful. Get back to work, all of you.
Nick, your faith in the generals is thoroughly misplaced, consider how rapidly they pulled the trigger on Syria. ( I know you liked that one. But that was easy, after all Assad can't really shoot back except at his own people. ) The crazy North Koreans will shoot back. The generals won't say no, so what the heck, lets drop the big one, see what happens. (ref Randy Newman).
5
My first thought on hearing that the N. Korean's tests failed was that DJT would tweet taunts or ridicule about the failure, leading to the unthinkable.
Here we have wo narcissists with bad haircuts, 'my missile is bigger than yours." And as DJT said in one of his brilliant campaign statements, "Why have nuclear weapons if you don't use them?" Does Ivanka make shrouds?
Here we have wo narcissists with bad haircuts, 'my missile is bigger than yours." And as DJT said in one of his brilliant campaign statements, "Why have nuclear weapons if you don't use them?" Does Ivanka make shrouds?
1
Partisanship is the reason why this situation has gotten worse since the 1990s, as this fact checker column from WaPost makes clear:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/13/cottons-m...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/13/cottons-m...
2
One option that is never mentioned is, "Withdraw all Americans soldiers from South Korea and let the South Koreans amp up their own war machine to counter the North Korean threat." Also, allow South Korea to develop their own intercontinental ballastic missiles capable of reaching the big super powers in Asia, China and Russia. Let´s see if that gets their attention in Beijing and Moscow.
Nick fortunately we have some time, he has to figure out first in which direction to send the war ships.
1
"When some men fail to accomplish what they desire to do they exclaim angrily,
"May the whole world perish!" This repulsive emotion is the pinnacle of envy, who's implication is, "If I cannot have something, no one can have anything, no one is to be anything!" Nietzsche
"May the whole world perish!" This repulsive emotion is the pinnacle of envy, who's implication is, "If I cannot have something, no one can have anything, no one is to be anything!" Nietzsche
2
what do they really want in North Korea? what would Neville Chamberlain do?
would they be happy if we gave them South Korea and signed a peace treaty? what about Texas? would we miss it that much?
beside all his still living relatives and henchmen, how many are loyal to the regime and how many just ignorant and scared of it?
maybe North Korea can be the solution to its own problem and that shoukd be our fo us as well... given alll other options seem to be dead ends.
would they be happy if we gave them South Korea and signed a peace treaty? what about Texas? would we miss it that much?
beside all his still living relatives and henchmen, how many are loyal to the regime and how many just ignorant and scared of it?
maybe North Korea can be the solution to its own problem and that shoukd be our fo us as well... given alll other options seem to be dead ends.
1
Other than the obligatory Trump bashing, Kristof has nothing to offer except empty hand waving. How does he know that Trump's "leaning" on Xi will likely fail? Is the CIA leaking highly classified documents to him or does he just have a foolproof crystal ball? What is Kristof really proposing - "postponement" until Kim has 200 nuclear warheads and the ICBMs to deliver them? Brilliant strategy, Nick
1
"...leaning on China to pressure North Korea will likely fail."
And you know this, how, exactly?
Clinton: Bribed NK to stop building nuclear weapons. Result: NK built nuclear weapons.
Bush: Bribed NK to stop building nuclear weapons. Result: NK built nuclear weapons.
Obama: UN Sanctions. Result: NK built nuclear weapons, detonating four of them between 2009 and 2017.
12 years of US playing "paper tiger" while NK builds nukes, detonates them, and increases its ability to deliver long-range weapons. This is not a "North Korea-Trump" nightmare. This is a "Clinton+Bush+Obama Appeasement" nightmare.
Peace in our time, right Mr Kristoff?
And you know this, how, exactly?
Clinton: Bribed NK to stop building nuclear weapons. Result: NK built nuclear weapons.
Bush: Bribed NK to stop building nuclear weapons. Result: NK built nuclear weapons.
Obama: UN Sanctions. Result: NK built nuclear weapons, detonating four of them between 2009 and 2017.
12 years of US playing "paper tiger" while NK builds nukes, detonates them, and increases its ability to deliver long-range weapons. This is not a "North Korea-Trump" nightmare. This is a "Clinton+Bush+Obama Appeasement" nightmare.
Peace in our time, right Mr Kristoff?
2
faulty memory - Idiot Bush scuttled the agreement that Clinton had put in place that resulted in N. Korea resuming on the path of nuclear deterrent. Without Buch we we would not facing this real threat. Trump's popularity going down down down may tempt him he has nothing to lose and pull the trigger. Trump is a known bad gambler - lost his shirt at the casinos.
And what if Kim Jong un is allowed to own an ICBM with a cherry nuke on top? Are we to assume - ASSUME - that he won't use it or if he did we could intercept it.
Nick, you're a bright well-meaning guy who never served in the military and doesn't really grasp trade offs. What we should have done was take care of NK when the cost was 200k lives, not 1 million. Should we wait until the number escalates to 10-20 million?
Nick, you're a bright well-meaning guy who never served in the military and doesn't really grasp trade offs. What we should have done was take care of NK when the cost was 200k lives, not 1 million. Should we wait until the number escalates to 10-20 million?
1
Are you saying a "trade off" of 1 million lives is okay in this instance?!
Not at all ok. But if he has nuke ICBM and is threatening to launch towards LA, San Fran, & Seattle, about 700% preferable. Yes, negotiate away... but be ready to act if needed. Don't assume we can intercept or the bomb will dud out.
Whatever is done, we need to flood that country with information on how bad their leader is and where their country stands in relation to the rest of the world. They have to be shown how their leader is lying to them. How he is causing them all this economic harm. How his strutting around and spending all that money on the military is not helping the common man whatsoever. Wait. Am I talking about North Korea or Trump supporters in the United States!?
2
Kristof suggests that our only real option, a bad one, is to work with China on relentless pressure to force North Korea into a deal to freeze its nuclear weapons program.
Let's assume this is true. Does the Trump administration have the will and the diplomatic chops to pull this off?
Let's assume this is true. Does the Trump administration have the will and the diplomatic chops to pull this off?
1
Scary. Yes. And perhaps more so because it is clear that Trump and his appointees will lie, even about security issues, to achieve their political ends. We do not seem to quite be to the Bush-WMD level yet, but the falsehoods about the US carrier group position in the western Pacific makes it clear that the lies will extend to Trump's military posturing relative to North Korea.
1
North Korea has again, today, stated its intention of first use of its weapons. It has nuclear weapons and missiles with increasing range that are intended to deliver them. If you neighbor said that he has the intention to hang you, and you see him start to construct a gallows in his back yard, don't you think that maybe it's time for you to start taking it seriously? The threat from NK has been building for more than a quarter century, it is not a chimera that lives only in the space between President Trump's ears. It is coming to a head now for reasons that have nothing to do with whomever the person is who occupies the White House. Calling it a nightmare is apt--indeed, that is what it is, and there are no good options, only worse ones. I doubt that Trump will "solve" the problem business as usual clearly has failed.
4
Because it is assumed that both Trump and Kim are crazy, there is fear that anything could happen. Mr. Kristof suggests a North Korean attack on South Korea in revenge of US aggression. Such an attack would make sense if it were sustained and therefore took advantage of the North's substantial army. But an all-out war is only one possibility, and it would be suicidal for North Korea. So you might as well predict that the North Koreans will use their air power to attack our Pacific fleet and to attack passenger aircraft. While it is a challenge to make sense of anything here, it isn't unlikely that Kim would take his revenge against the US rather than engaging in a suicidal war with the South.
Yes, the threat of nuclear war with North Korea literally keeps me up at night since Trump became president, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it for the next three years and seven months. There is, however, something I can do about the other topic you broached--Bill O'Reilly's career. Now that he has lost his TV presence (for now, at least), it's time to get him off the bestseller lists. I'm encouraging booksellers and book buyers, not only to boycott his books, but to boycott all books published by his publisher, Holt.
In the final analysis, that's what got him off the air--his show losing support from sponsors.
In the final analysis, that's what got him off the air--his show losing support from sponsors.
2
In a very odd twist I say make an offer to send retired NBA players or the Harlem Globe Trotters to North Korea. At one point North Korean leadership was gaga over professional basketball and Dennis Rodman and some fellow ex-NBA players actually visited at least once. It's a long shot but at this point any possibility of rapprochement and getting the parties to talk would be a positive step. The NBA as international ambassadors of good will? I think it could happen. Much less aggressive and less risky than sending a carrier group to the South China sea.
Remember the fall of the Berlin wall. I think the slow and steady influence of American economics and culture is what really brought down the Berlin wall. It's worth a try to see if a similar strategy could work with North Korea.
Remember the fall of the Berlin wall. I think the slow and steady influence of American economics and culture is what really brought down the Berlin wall. It's worth a try to see if a similar strategy could work with North Korea.
One million casualties means that one million human beings will die. How is that understandable? Human beings with families, friends, purposeful lives, hopes and dreams. Are we out of our minds?
3
Perhaps it is the way the republicans solve the population growth crisis on a global scale, while maintaining their anti-abortion stance. Of course, we know how truly pro-life they are, after all.
The president knows that his days are numbered with the Russian investigation going full throttle. What could be better than a huge distraction like impending nuclear war to get people's minds off a silly thing like meddling in an election and having close ties to those who meddled.
2
When this was first reported, news agencies also reported the fleet was headed for Singapore. So why does it seem so surprising that the fleet was headed for Singapore? These fleets don't turn on a dime. They also had to have a place and a plan for what to do when they got there. No one was shooting. It was preparedness that needed to be defined. The fleet is headed there and no one is shooting at the other. Trump was was right, he was sending them there. And, he ios doing it on his timetable, not the NYT's time table. At one stage of the Vietnam conflict, an administration official was ask on one of the Sunday news shows, "What will happen if NK starts causing problems?" The answer was, "They need to understand they have been mapped for nuclear destruction." Trump was making a statement. One way or another, the fleet was going to the areas. North Korea needed to know he wasn't fooling. China actually told them we weren't fooling. Message sent.
1
The first step in our dealing with any crisis must be for Donald Trump to take responsibility for his actions as a human being and president. Without this we are left without a leader.
Perhaps heaven help us our only hope might be be that he is too busy making money and milking us for his gain for him to pay attention to his job. Is this the only solution to our survival?
Perhaps heaven help us our only hope might be be that he is too busy making money and milking us for his gain for him to pay attention to his job. Is this the only solution to our survival?
What a nightmare---Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump at odds. i don't know which one is the worst for being able to make a good decision on what to do about the situation. Unfortunately, this is not a nightmare; it is actual.
1
It was probably not lost on anyone that the bunker-busting MOAB recently field-tested in Afghanistan was a trial for its potential use on the artillery bunkers just north of the DMZ.
1
How about actually meeting with these North Koreans & talking, for a start? Or is that not macho enough? Kim Jong-un is a tyrant, but a lot of this problem is paranoia among him & other N. Korean leaders.
Let's not have another unnecessary war -- the two prime examples being Vietnam & Iraq. Vietnam gave us millions of dead, trillions of wasted tax dollars, & Pol Pot. Iraq gave us millions of dead, trillions of wasted tax dollars, & ISIS.
Let's at least try to talk first. Not appeasement, just talk, face-to-face. At least then, if war does come, we can say we tried everything else & war was the last resort option.
Let's not have another unnecessary war -- the two prime examples being Vietnam & Iraq. Vietnam gave us millions of dead, trillions of wasted tax dollars, & Pol Pot. Iraq gave us millions of dead, trillions of wasted tax dollars, & ISIS.
Let's at least try to talk first. Not appeasement, just talk, face-to-face. At least then, if war does come, we can say we tried everything else & war was the last resort option.
2
Talk about what? Do you have any plan for what you might offer Kim and how you will find to his demands?
2
*reply to his demands
Relentless pressure. Pure. Genius. Relentless. Pressure.
1
So you yourself admit that even striking a deal with North Korea is no solution at all. Yet you declaim any necessity to actually fight. It is becoming increasingly apparent that we cannot allow North Korea to attain the ability to launch a nuclear missile at the United States. We have to destroy that regime now. Obamam Bush and Clinton didn't do nearly enough to undermine the regime, and now Trump is stuck with the dirty job. Congress needs to approve a war though. Harry Truman got us involved in an undeclared war there. The American people should decide whether we go to war today.
1
N. Korea us not an existential threat to the US. Its generals know that launching anything in our direction is a suicide mission for them. It is however a dire strategic threat to S. Korea and Japan. My only question is how does the Chinese leadership see it's end game as N. Korea continues to acquire nukes? What will that look like for us?
2
Colin Powell sold the U.N. and the world a bill of goods when he disseminated falsehoods about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent WMD program, but to his credit he also famously said about America's adventures in nation building though invasion: "You break it, you bought it."
What Powell didn't say is who would pay for it.
Well, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have paid dearly in blood and lives for American intervention. I wouldn't wish their fate even on the rich, complacent and complicit inhabitants of America's hidden oases for the rich. But it's the American taxpayers who will be paying off the cost of these wars for generations to come.
And you know what? It doesn't make any difference to the administration or to most Americans. So, if and when Lyin' Donnie Trump decides he needs a lift in his neurotransmitters and in the polls and orders a strike against North Korea, recent history will repeat itself. The Koreans will bleed and die, and the American taxpayers will be bled white by the unimaginably vast cost of military aggression.
What Powell didn't say is who would pay for it.
Well, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have paid dearly in blood and lives for American intervention. I wouldn't wish their fate even on the rich, complacent and complicit inhabitants of America's hidden oases for the rich. But it's the American taxpayers who will be paying off the cost of these wars for generations to come.
And you know what? It doesn't make any difference to the administration or to most Americans. So, if and when Lyin' Donnie Trump decides he needs a lift in his neurotransmitters and in the polls and orders a strike against North Korea, recent history will repeat itself. The Koreans will bleed and die, and the American taxpayers will be bled white by the unimaginably vast cost of military aggression.
1
Having lived in South Korea for 7-years and visited North Korea during that period, actions with a high likelihood of an attack on Seoul, one of the world's great cities, are unimaginable and unacceptable. North Koreans, for generations, have come to believe the U.S. is their grand enemy and wants to attack them. There is reason for them to believe this-though much has been fabricated and served-up to them by their totalitarian government. This is no "Wizard of Oz scenario"--kill the wizard and every one will drop their swords and sing and dance. The only tenable solution is negotiating; show humility, yet strength. Isn't this what Trump supporters said he was best at doing?
5
Negotiating with a madman.
That's so Neville.
That's so Neville.
2
Actually, the Wicked Witch of the West was killed, and the guards danced, not the Wizard
Unfortunately "unthinkable" presupposes a capacity for reason never previously demonstrated by Donald
Trump. Every day that he controls the nuclear codes
Represents a renewed threat that none of our children will grow up.
Trump. Every day that he controls the nuclear codes
Represents a renewed threat that none of our children will grow up.
8
Empty threats are not going to sway North Korea or China, but there are inducements that might lead to a unified Korea similar to how east and west Germany merged. For China, a promise of withdrawing all US military personnel, a huge market for it's exports, and the prospect of a stable Korean border could encourage them to squeeze North Korea now. For the North Korean leadership, offer a share of 500 million dollars (say 100 million to the leader [whomever that was at the time], 10 million each to the next level, etc) and safe passage to a country of their choice with no threat of prosecution would certainly provide a life of safety and luxury in response to turning over the keys to South Korea.
3
Empty suits and empty heads make empty threats. He is a logic error, and will only operate incorrectly.
This is scary with Trump in office. But what would Clinton have done differently?
I heard General Martin Dempsey, Obama's Chair of the Joint Chiefs, speak a couple of months ago, and he said, basically, that the only way to defend the US from North Korean nuclear ICBMs is a preemptive strike. And yes, this would lead to massive casualties.
I heard General Martin Dempsey, Obama's Chair of the Joint Chiefs, speak a couple of months ago, and he said, basically, that the only way to defend the US from North Korean nuclear ICBMs is a preemptive strike. And yes, this would lead to massive casualties.
2
It seems to me that we are living on borrowed time after a failure over more than 40 years to comply with the terms of the ratified Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Alienation hardly ever has a good result. Our continuing use of alienation, along with threats to various countries, drives them toward acquisition of nuclear weapons, as has already happened in N. Korea. If we keep it up, Iran may be driven to seek deterrence as well.
Countries outside the NPT with nuclear inventories pose substantial risks, especially Pakistan, with potential leakage of nuclear materials and weapons to terrorists.
Rather than continuing the process of punitive alienation and threats, along with spending hundreds of billions of dollars on “modernizing” our nuclear arsenal in violation of the NPT, it is time to get serious about a global effort to remove nuclear weapons before they destroy us.
Alienation hardly ever has a good result. Our continuing use of alienation, along with threats to various countries, drives them toward acquisition of nuclear weapons, as has already happened in N. Korea. If we keep it up, Iran may be driven to seek deterrence as well.
Countries outside the NPT with nuclear inventories pose substantial risks, especially Pakistan, with potential leakage of nuclear materials and weapons to terrorists.
Rather than continuing the process of punitive alienation and threats, along with spending hundreds of billions of dollars on “modernizing” our nuclear arsenal in violation of the NPT, it is time to get serious about a global effort to remove nuclear weapons before they destroy us.
1
It might also be a good idea to say very publicly that the United States will NOT preemptively attack North Korea for any reason at all. That might be a start. After all the rest of the world, especially the parts of the world that republican presidents have liked to call things like "Axis of evil" "Evil Empires" etc for the last half century.
These people do not have the same picture of America that We and our Allies have. They fear us, and for good reason. See Iraq.
These people do not have the same picture of America that We and our Allies have. They fear us, and for good reason. See Iraq.
1
Right.
The pudgy lunatic running North Korea probably can't wait to sign on.
Do they have baseball on your planet?
The pudgy lunatic running North Korea probably can't wait to sign on.
Do they have baseball on your planet?
OK, now I feel even greater threat and anxiety. But I appreciate this informed analysis. The more we openly discuss the options and possibilities, the more likely we are to avoid catastrophe. The poor North Koreans. Brainwashed, hungry, imprisoned by thought police, led by arguably the most obese person in the country.
1
The "only option" is diplomacy--specifically, a return to the principle of "action for action" in the 2005 Six Party Talks declaration. Using sticks along with carrots, per your notion of "relentless pressure," will not work. Sticks should be a last resort; focus first on offering security assurances, development aid, and a peace treaty to end the state of war in return for (at least) a nuclear and missile testing freeze under international inspection.
1
Carrot and stick are the balanced and proper course of action. A military option would be catastrophic. But although sanctions, universally applied through the UN and agreement with China could be effective, they would victimize the North Korean people and not its kleptocracy or its nuclear p.rogram. People would starve before enriched uranium was prevented from reaching the dictatorship. We need to make the regime realize that it is to their benefit to cooperate for the benefit of all. No one wants to suffer the terror of all-out war, but that doesn't mean we do not need to be prepared. We do, unfortunately.
This is where we needed the experience of Secretary Clinton and Kerry to steer a sane course through this mine-laden path. Hopefully, as you point out, the sage members of the cabinet will win out. We can only hope.
This is where we needed the experience of Secretary Clinton and Kerry to steer a sane course through this mine-laden path. Hopefully, as you point out, the sage members of the cabinet will win out. We can only hope.
4
Well, Nicholas is left wringing his hands and rolling his eyes. It appears N Korea can cause major damage no matter what is done. Either we allow N Korea to go nuclear and delay any action until his next adventure in blackmail, or we act now. It's not just a question of when, but how. The carrot or the stick?
When we decide to act, there seem to be two extreme possibilities: Kim Jong-un is nuts or he's not.
If he is nuts, it's unlikely his supporters in his country are all nuts. So they have to be convinced, and Kim Jong-un will have to be contained. If Kim Jong-un is sane, he can be convinced himself.
The stick is the threat of certain suicide unless N Korea stands down. Suicide is an unlikely choice, especially by all the officials of an entire country. That is the military solution. Possibly a permanent siege will require nuclear arms for Japan and N Korea. Preventing that possibility may induce Russian and Chinese cooperation.
The carrot has barely been discussed. We know N Korea is in terrible economic shape. Perhaps a path to economic well being can be outlined that is sufficiently attractive to engineer disarmament? So far, China is itself a model of economic success, but it has not led N Korea to follow its lead. Who is going to figure that one out?
When we decide to act, there seem to be two extreme possibilities: Kim Jong-un is nuts or he's not.
If he is nuts, it's unlikely his supporters in his country are all nuts. So they have to be convinced, and Kim Jong-un will have to be contained. If Kim Jong-un is sane, he can be convinced himself.
The stick is the threat of certain suicide unless N Korea stands down. Suicide is an unlikely choice, especially by all the officials of an entire country. That is the military solution. Possibly a permanent siege will require nuclear arms for Japan and N Korea. Preventing that possibility may induce Russian and Chinese cooperation.
The carrot has barely been discussed. We know N Korea is in terrible economic shape. Perhaps a path to economic well being can be outlined that is sufficiently attractive to engineer disarmament? So far, China is itself a model of economic success, but it has not led N Korea to follow its lead. Who is going to figure that one out?
3
As I understand, the Korean war ended with an armistice, but not a peace treaty. How about trying to negotiate a treaty guaranteeing the independence and security of both North and South Korea, with those countries, China and the U.S. as parties. This would give North Korea the international respect which I assume is its ultimate goal.
5
And with no self-defeating preconditions.
1
It's time for us to think "out of the box" on dealing with the current Korea crisis. It is necessary to recall that what ended the Korean War of 1950-1953 was a truce, not a peace treaty. All that what was agreed to by the warring powers was a cessation of the fighting and not a settlement on the final status of the two governments that occupy the Korean peninsula. What I am proposing is that the U.S. and N. Korea along with their respective allies sign a treaty that would replace the current truce agreement. Such a treaty would include a formal recognition of North Korean independence and a non-aggression feature that would assure N. Korean security. In exchange, N. Korea would be obligated to disarm its nuclear capability. To make this palatable to Pyonyang, the U.S would agree to a phased reduction of its forces and weaponry currently in place in South Korea. I believe China and S. Korea would go along with the peace treaty proposal because it would provide advantages to each party in terms of promoting peace and security in the entire Far East region.
3
That's the Libyian solution which won't work from the North's perspective. Accept them as a nuclear power and grant them full world status in return for joining the NPT. Their human rights abuses, health, form of government and isolation are the worst in the world. We can only do better than what we're doing now and the current ride is getting scarier. Patience for what? We all need to give up something to get this done and trying to save face is the last thing two million dead people would have wanted, not to count their twenty million living relatives who survived.
1
The North Korean regime clearly believes it needs to maintain the nation on a war footing to remain in power.
A perfectly sane and reasoned solution. Problem is that NK won't give up the nukes. They have become a part of the NK Constitution.
This is what the Electoral College voted for; if not the majority of voters by almost 3 million. Our system is broken and enough people don't really think anymore.
5
Being governed by dead people and corporations makes life in the US very special.
1
I call it the "Hitler Doctrine". Its pretty simple really. What is the measure of the inherent violence of a dictator and his potential or real damage to the international community before even educated, tempered, restrained and wise decent people must engage in violence to topple the dangerous regime?
This Doctrine measures simply how much of the sociological cancer leaks out of said regime into the surrounding nations and the rest of the world.
In this light, Nazi Germany was truly a cancer with global reach. It infected Europe, and legitimated authoritarian regimes internationally and in many ways still plagues us today. It was a deeply murderous regime as well, whose violence spread throughout Europe and, indeed, the world.
Can we say the same for these twisted men in North Korea? They are on the cusp of truly pointing a gun at our heads. Yet Russia has had this power for generations as well as China, India, Pakistan, and friendly countries too such as Great Britain, France, and Israel.
Obama, the educated highly intelligent statesman and scholar, understood that there was plenty of hope in assisting the North Korean people in toppling their cancerous regime from within.
It remains the most sane choice among a plethora of bad choices.
Now- sadly we have an incompetent demagogue occupying our White House. If was breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, it will no doubt be because of the horrific "leader" now sullying the office of POTUS.
This Doctrine measures simply how much of the sociological cancer leaks out of said regime into the surrounding nations and the rest of the world.
In this light, Nazi Germany was truly a cancer with global reach. It infected Europe, and legitimated authoritarian regimes internationally and in many ways still plagues us today. It was a deeply murderous regime as well, whose violence spread throughout Europe and, indeed, the world.
Can we say the same for these twisted men in North Korea? They are on the cusp of truly pointing a gun at our heads. Yet Russia has had this power for generations as well as China, India, Pakistan, and friendly countries too such as Great Britain, France, and Israel.
Obama, the educated highly intelligent statesman and scholar, understood that there was plenty of hope in assisting the North Korean people in toppling their cancerous regime from within.
It remains the most sane choice among a plethora of bad choices.
Now- sadly we have an incompetent demagogue occupying our White House. If was breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, it will no doubt be because of the horrific "leader" now sullying the office of POTUS.
9
And make no mistake. Most people alive today do not have any experience of what a nuclear bomb can do.Dear Leader in N. Korea is a narcissistic tyrant with no moral compass. A war with N. Korea looks more and more like one including the dreaded nuclear component.
The aftermath persists for decades and if there is a planet left after it will be diseased for years.
Check out Hiroshima and Nagasaki after 1945 and its populations. What is available now is much more powerful.
Shame on humankind for learning no lessons!!!!!!!
The aftermath persists for decades and if there is a planet left after it will be diseased for years.
Check out Hiroshima and Nagasaki after 1945 and its populations. What is available now is much more powerful.
Shame on humankind for learning no lessons!!!!!!!
6
Dear Leader in USA is a narcissistic tyrant with no moral compass. Now wha?
What is often forgotten in this "one demon at a time" approach to the world and in focusing on North Korea, is that to date nuclear weapons have only been used twice, by none other than the US. Of course, it's defended as "necessary", but I can imagine that in the mind of the DPRK leader, the fact weighs more than the defense.
Equally hard to accept is the fact that the US isn't nearly as highly strung about India and Pakistan having nukes (or Israel, even though this is never officially acknowledged), despite the former two having been at loggerheads, and regularly at war, since birth.
On the contrary, it makes having nuclear weapons of your own sound like a very good idea indeed. After all, when through the accident of history you find yourself facing the only nation that has actually used these things in anger, leveling the playing field is pretty damn clever.
Furthermore, looked at dispassionately, what has North Korea actually done? Spent its scant resources on something hugely complex and expensive, and deprived its citizens of their future. But actual aggression? Hardly a threat to world peace, I would say.
Therefor, I believe that the US would be better off trying to normalize its relationship with the DPRK, rather than maintain its bellicose stance. This can be done without risking the fate of humanity, but would oblige the Kim-camp to adapt to the reduced threat and, bereft of its main excuse, start acting in the interests of its people (or fade away ...).
Equally hard to accept is the fact that the US isn't nearly as highly strung about India and Pakistan having nukes (or Israel, even though this is never officially acknowledged), despite the former two having been at loggerheads, and regularly at war, since birth.
On the contrary, it makes having nuclear weapons of your own sound like a very good idea indeed. After all, when through the accident of history you find yourself facing the only nation that has actually used these things in anger, leveling the playing field is pretty damn clever.
Furthermore, looked at dispassionately, what has North Korea actually done? Spent its scant resources on something hugely complex and expensive, and deprived its citizens of their future. But actual aggression? Hardly a threat to world peace, I would say.
Therefor, I believe that the US would be better off trying to normalize its relationship with the DPRK, rather than maintain its bellicose stance. This can be done without risking the fate of humanity, but would oblige the Kim-camp to adapt to the reduced threat and, bereft of its main excuse, start acting in the interests of its people (or fade away ...).
6
I fully agree that all solution are lousy. But I'm not sure a solution which leaves American in a position to be blackmailed by nuclear warheads pointed at Los Angles is the right one. They now can and do blackmail South Korea with their conventional forces. Is letting a madman running a failed state dictate policy to the US with missiles better than attacking them? I'm not sure which is the least bad.
5
Just to play devil's advocate - North Korea has 20 nuclear weapons, and the U.S. has how many, 2-3000?
The North Koreans killed 31 Americans in 1969 - how many citizens of how many nations were killed by the U.S. government in the last four months? 1000+, counting "militants" who were literally born into the war we created in the middle East?
North Korea has invaded how many nations, started how many wars, overthrown how many democratically elected governments since 1960?
The North Koreans killed 31 Americans in 1969 - how many citizens of how many nations were killed by the U.S. government in the last four months? 1000+, counting "militants" who were literally born into the war we created in the middle East?
North Korea has invaded how many nations, started how many wars, overthrown how many democratically elected governments since 1960?
3
Eric, let's play another round of devil's advocate. Let's exchange the entire nuclear capabilities of the US and NK. Now, NK has 2-3,000 (actually, the US has more like 7-8,000) BIG nukes and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the world, and the US has - maybe - 20 nukes with no capacity to deliver at all. Now, how comfortable do feel playing a round of Russian roulette with the guy with his finger on the LAUNCH button?
So what's to stop China and North Korea from getting together and conning our idiot President? NK rattles its missiles, China winks at them and tells us they will help us out for a good trade deal, they split the take with NK and tell them to keep their coal. Then they continue with their nuclear program, China shrugs, and Trump declares victory, like his popular vote win or his recent "win" in Georgia. Let's face it, with an ignorant boob for President, someone easily manipulated by triggering his massive ego, America is anybody's fool.
5
Just reading about N Korea threatening a super massive strike on the USA, again.
Get Pence and Xi over there to talk to Kim Jung Un and start a dialogue!
Throw away the idiot Presidents Twitter machine and lock him up for time out. He's a danger to us and himself. Ignorance, incompetence and downright stupidity.
Get Pence and Xi over there to talk to Kim Jung Un and start a dialogue!
Throw away the idiot Presidents Twitter machine and lock him up for time out. He's a danger to us and himself. Ignorance, incompetence and downright stupidity.
3
It's astonishing how far our Crybaby In Chief will go to distract us from his Russian owners.
12
Why does no one consider an alternative: Let NK have its nuclear weapons. Assuming that Kim is rational (likely, in my opinion) he only wants them to prevent a US attack. In that case, his long term survival will depend on his own domestic issues. The NK population will suffer in the meantime, but that has been the case for the last 60 years.
3
I would agree with you in almost every other case. I think it's fine for Iran to get nukes. It's not an issue we should go to war over. However, North Korea has never acted like a rational state, which we can see every time they threaten to turn our cities to ashes.
Kim is anything but rational. He is like a child playing with matches.
The most foolish belief is that NK wants nuclear weapons (and specifically ICBMs) for self-defense. Utter rubbish. NK has successfully deterred hostile action from the US for decades by its thousands of heavy artillery pieces pointed at Seoul, which cannot be neutralized before they devastate half of NK. NK wants nukes for two very different, OFFENSIVE reasons: (i) to continue to blackmail the international community (but particularly SK, China and the US) to give aid and money; and (ii) eventually to coerce the US to stop defending SK, thereby changing the balance of power in Asia. The time will come when even China will understand that NK with deliverable nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated, because it will force both SK and Japan to go nuclear and that will checkmate China's desire to become the new hegemon in Asia. I am rather pessimistic that a devastating war can be avoided, because a small and terribly poor rogue state like NK cannot be allowed to keep the rest of the world hostage in perpetuity. In the near future, a calculation will be made that the costs of war justify the need to "put down" NK. And neither China nor Russia will stand in the way, because they too understand the stakes involved.
That sums it up nicely: we should not call those in charge 'leaders'--they are nothing of the sort. They are truly unstable men who are showing nothing like 'leadership'. The result of allowing such men to have power and access to nuclear weapons is likely to become a nightmare. What to do about it? There is no easy answer, as Kristof so eloquently describes the situation. None.
2
Let's hope that IF Trump decides to bomb North Korea, he specifies 'NORTH' Korea , versus 'Korea', or 'South Korea'.
He seems not to know Syria from Iraq, or which direction an 'armada' is taking.
It's all really a crap shoot with this guy.
He seems not to know Syria from Iraq, or which direction an 'armada' is taking.
It's all really a crap shoot with this guy.
12
Korea is a cash economy. Choke off the flow of renminbi, dollars, and euros on which it depends and flood the market with counterfeit North Korean Won. Let inflation finish the job. No confrontation, no costly war. The hard part is the first currency because China doesn't want the DPRK to collapse. But it seems unlikely they could bring hard currency into the country fast enough to prevent the collapse. What am I missing?
2
So why didn't Obama do that? If we could strike a deal with North Korea, we should have done so, but Obama could have done more to undermine the regime. Now Trump is stuck with a country that could soon drop nukes on Seattle and Portland.
And the hawks are already blustering about the inevitablity of war with North Korea - like a veteran general today at thedailybeast. He explains that it would need "millions of troops, thousands of pieces of artillery and missiles, hundreds of aircraft and ships" and expects "tens of thousands casualties and untold amounts of treasure".
And, he thinks South Korea and Japan would give their consensus.
It just needs some guys as delusional as this, and they blow up the world.
And, he thinks South Korea and Japan would give their consensus.
It just needs some guys as delusional as this, and they blow up the world.
3
I have been opposed to most wars we've fought, but would you be ok with the North Koreans gaining the capability to shoot nuclear missiles at our country?
And the military industrial complex is drooling over the benefits they will reap. Oh, wait! The DoD has already lost $6.5 trillion smackaroos. That's right, they fudged their records because they lost it. Or that is the tale anyway. It most likely was skimmed off, because Congress has not done an audit of the Pentagon. Hmmm-mm. But the taxpayers foot their bill, suckers....
Although I have no way of knowing, I'm betting (And hoping.) that two Cold War era novels, "Failsafe", and "Seven Days in May", are being widely read at the Pentagon right now.
1
The world must recognize why the North Korean regime thinks the way they do. They are paranoid and the most common symptom is the sense that everyone is out to get you. They have structured the entire country as a military state at the expense of their own people because they think everyone is out to get them, and nobody is! It is an astonishing remnant of evolution. Any solution to this problem must address their paranoia first. Having 30,000 troops parked outside their doorstep just reinforces their irrational fears.
3
I sense a paranoia in the USA too. Paranoid people are the most common variety of trump supporters. Not good to have two crazy "leaders" and a bunch of paranoid citizens in two countries , with lots of weapons.
The paranoid of the slouching vulgarian must be factored into this hot mess. All of what you say also applies to our empty suit/liar-in-chief. We cannot trust what he or his minions say to us. He is incoherent and impulsive. Now what.
Does Trump understand that it takes an act of congress to attack a foreign country without being attacked first? Heaven help us. Please talk, talk, talk using China's help.
1
Harry Truman didn't ask for a declaration of war when he got us into the Korean War based on nothing but his own decision.
Did congress act to approve the rocket attacks on Syria and the really big bomb in Afghanistan?
As Trevor Noah put it, Pence looked sternly across the DMZ as if Planned Parenthood was facing him in North Korea. But his threat about ending "the era of strategic patience" is pretty hollow when one considers North Korea's ability to decimate Seoul given the slightest provocation. Trump may not know it because he doesn't know much of anything, but the Chinese know it, the South Koreans know it, our Pentagon knows it and our State Department knows it.
22
Remember the 1898 Spanish American war? Spain's diplomats had given us all we wanted. We bombed and destroyed their fleet anyway... What some wish Obama should have done after the Russian brokered deal to destroy ALL Assad's WMDs... Trust but verify. Oh, we knew! So we should have started WWIII with the cheating Russians? This is not 1898. We live in a multipolar world where many countries claim exceptionalism. Are we still prosecutors, judge, jury and executioners? Haven't we been there before? Did not we deal with Mao? 20 Million had died in the great leap forward. And before that we dealt with the USSR, its gulags, its oppression of Eastern Europe, its wars of "independence", its KGB and its 50Mtons thermo nuclear test. Unless we are ready for WWIII we will live with North Korea until it crumbles all by itself like the USSR.
3
In the matter of defense , military operation and security of America, the administration should be transparent and honest. Bluff or lying to American public can be dangerous and it is scary. Americans do not believe Trump but they trust Mattis, McMaster and Kelly who are the only grown ups in the administration. We expect these three to be honest and capable.
2
A war would cost 1 million lives and 1 trillion dollars? Sounds like Iraq and its aftermath, which plenty of the Republicans still in power continue to defend. That cost may seem acceptable to those making the call.
4
Besides hand wringing, and letting the problem grow you don't present any viable alternative. Just worry about a confrontation and statements that nothing will likely improve the situation.
Kicking the can down the road in the hope that a miracle will occur. Great plan!!
Kicking the can down the road in the hope that a miracle will occur. Great plan!!
3
There's a reason that "Patience is a virtue" became a widely regarded axiom.
A regime willing to let its own citizens die cannot be negotiated with. Citizens willing to die for the regime cannot be negotiated with.
North Korea presents a gordian knot for diplomacy and military tactics, but Trump is no Alexander the Great to slice the problem down the middle with a radical, heretofore unimagined solution. His bully rhetoric and bluster mean very little to a dynasty that perfected it.
North Korea presents a gordian knot for diplomacy and military tactics, but Trump is no Alexander the Great to slice the problem down the middle with a radical, heretofore unimagined solution. His bully rhetoric and bluster mean very little to a dynasty that perfected it.
8
Kim family's long term objective is to take over South Korea. It certainly knows US/S Korea will not start a war, for reasons Mr. Kristoff mentioned. Threatening US mainland intend to drive a wedge between us, softening up S Korea. US and S Korea should jointly propose a peace plan based on a two-state solution guaranteed by the US, Japan and China. with China stationing some troops in N Korea as a deterrent just as our brigade in Berlin. Probably won't work directly but it ids a framework for working with China. WE may have to rely on deterrence vs. N Korea but we certainly push it out of any international contacts -- we should embargo effectively luxury goods and what Kim III uses to take care of his elite supporters. i would call this active patience. As NYT pointed our Kim dynasty politically lives on the fiction it is deterring threats to N Korea and easiest way to take wind out of its sails is to avoid idle threats whilst maintaining strong ties with S Korea which needs to build its image and connections with the American public.
2
This Op-Ed is a thinly veiled excuse for calling Trump names. He may deserve them, but this piece pretends to be a substantive policy prescription.
Mr. Kristof admits the agreements we have with the North Koreans, under Clinton, Bush and Obama, have failed. US intelligence says time is running out...the North is a year or so away from being able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the US. Since that is an educated guess, the period may be shorter then that.
The scary thing here is a lunatic dictator who threatens the US with nuclear attack. Not the current occupant of the White House. History teaches that allowing bellicose despots to fester eventually costs more lives, not less. Unfortunately more of the same is precisely the prescription offered by Mr. Kristof.
The United States no longer has the luxury to be complacent with the kind of intellectual myopia on display in this Op-Ed.
Mr. Kristof admits the agreements we have with the North Koreans, under Clinton, Bush and Obama, have failed. US intelligence says time is running out...the North is a year or so away from being able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the US. Since that is an educated guess, the period may be shorter then that.
The scary thing here is a lunatic dictator who threatens the US with nuclear attack. Not the current occupant of the White House. History teaches that allowing bellicose despots to fester eventually costs more lives, not less. Unfortunately more of the same is precisely the prescription offered by Mr. Kristof.
The United States no longer has the luxury to be complacent with the kind of intellectual myopia on display in this Op-Ed.
1
Nick, weren't you just applauding Trump's strike in Syria?
You fail to see is NK is a growing destabilizing force in the region and across the pacific. It isn't likely NK wants to invade Japan, but would they want SK? That's exactly what happened in the Korean War.
The conundrum is every month that passes increases the likelihood of a nuclear capable NK that has an arsenal of nuke tipped missiles capable of hitting allies and the US. You think artillery strikes on Seoul would be devastating, yes they would. Imagine nukes hitting Seoul, Tokyo, Los Angeles. What degree of magnitude worse would that be? The end result of either a conventional or nuclear attack by NK would be their devastation -- the question is -- how much do we want to risk on our side though.
Is NK likely to use nukes regardless of what we do? If this were a sane regime, it might be possible to believe that like any civilized nation they wouldn't use a first strike capability. But the current leader is unstable & NK is becoming more desperate economically. Allowing them to increase their nuclear capability seems foolish -- and don't forget the risk of them selling a weapon to terrorists.
Further, Trump is not a rogue president. Nothing he has done militarily allows that depiction. His response in Syria was measured. His instinct is to avoid war by showing military strength, not withdrawing. What is true, our past approach hasn't worked. And NK isn't sitting still.
You fail to see is NK is a growing destabilizing force in the region and across the pacific. It isn't likely NK wants to invade Japan, but would they want SK? That's exactly what happened in the Korean War.
The conundrum is every month that passes increases the likelihood of a nuclear capable NK that has an arsenal of nuke tipped missiles capable of hitting allies and the US. You think artillery strikes on Seoul would be devastating, yes they would. Imagine nukes hitting Seoul, Tokyo, Los Angeles. What degree of magnitude worse would that be? The end result of either a conventional or nuclear attack by NK would be their devastation -- the question is -- how much do we want to risk on our side though.
Is NK likely to use nukes regardless of what we do? If this were a sane regime, it might be possible to believe that like any civilized nation they wouldn't use a first strike capability. But the current leader is unstable & NK is becoming more desperate economically. Allowing them to increase their nuclear capability seems foolish -- and don't forget the risk of them selling a weapon to terrorists.
Further, Trump is not a rogue president. Nothing he has done militarily allows that depiction. His response in Syria was measured. His instinct is to avoid war by showing military strength, not withdrawing. What is true, our past approach hasn't worked. And NK isn't sitting still.
3
Kristof's answer on North Korea is essentially President Obama's Iranian strategy without the cargo of cash. Play for time hoping things will eventually work out. Such policy would be utterly disastrous. Say what you want about Donald Trump, he is wise to confront North Korea's nuclear missile aspirations now rather than later when it's too late. Trump is also smart engage China to put the heat on the Boy King. We must have China's help. The President, with Senate's support, should immediately increase military spending, bolstering the U.S. nuclear missile defense. There's a mad man in North Korea ready to strike America at anytime.
3
Trump will use wars as a mean to stay in office 4 more years. I hope N. Korea would learn the lesson from Syria. Do not create opportunity for Trump to divert domestic hard times to transform himself to a war time president. The one country I concern is China. Trump occupies the Oval Office is good for China. The first gift Trump handed to Xi was tearing off the TPP. In return China recognizes Trump brand. Xi knows how to make Trump happy. That is also a warning to Trump, do not make us boycott your brand. Trump is good for China, and that is likely not good for the USA. In that sense don’t expect China will control N. Korea behavior.
If Trump occupied the Oval Office 4 more years, China will lead the world in coming 2 decades.
If Trump occupied the Oval Office 4 more years, China will lead the world in coming 2 decades.
2
Let Trump attack North Korea. Visualize, then, what will happen? Not only the Koreas and the Japanese together with the US solders will encounter disasters one after another, but also North Korea, perhaps, will possibly continue to keep some nuclear and chemical weapons for the additional attack to the US military bases in South Korea and Japan. What China will do? They will cross the north border and will invade (or being invited) North Korea in order to protect North Korea as a great excuse. If Kim regime were weakened by the US attack, China will replace the regime to establish a new China-friendly one. China will gain the control of North Korea without bleeding herself. This new geopolitical balance will threaten The US and Japan military alliance because China's missiles will face the US military bases in Japan right across the Japan Sea.
"...one million casualties and $1 trillion in damage." Who's he kidding? Few such prognostications have been on target. And the potential immediate and exponential devastation are not wisely considered. Why? Because its over there, not here. Nationalism, isolationism, narcissism, political immaturity and just plain stupidity is driving this apocalypse. And we voted it in and allow it to remain.
When you write, "it may then be very tempting for a deeply frustrated rogue president to show his muscle," I honestly don't know if you're referring to Trump or Kim Jong-un. The fact that it could legitimately be either one is deeply troubling.
When people asked President Obama what kept him up at night, he would say all of those Pakistani nuclear weapons spread around a largely unstable country. There are zero good options remaining in Korea, Trump or no Trump. I despise the guy and his puffery, but it may be our only hope to bring an unstable Korea to the table.
3
The definition of crazy is to do the same thing and expect a different result. It's a band-aid that needs to be pulled off now, before the consequences of so called "pressure on N. Korea" result in an even more dangeorus regime. Either we ( and I mean the US) take out their nukes now or take out KIm. We do not have any other choices. And, Trump is crazy enough to do it..
3
How does the free world know if North Korea is launching a test missile or a weapon? Perhaps we have to allow the dog one bite before putting it down.
In the future, better cyber weapons might prevent a launch without identifying who did it or how it was done. It is hard to retaliate against a ghost.
In the future, better cyber weapons might prevent a launch without identifying who did it or how it was done. It is hard to retaliate against a ghost.
1
What are the odds that we blunder into a war somewhere in the world during the Trump years? And where do you think it will be: North Korea, Syria, Iran? Or will we be at war everywhere? And how much defense contractor stock will Trump and Kushner buy before the shooting starts? How much money can they make doing that?
2
Yes, Trump is likely to seek a provocation to "retaliate" by attacking North Korea.
But why with cruise missiles, which would not do much harm against dispersed and hardened targets and would likely trigger an artillery attack on Seoul and military targets? That leaves a ground assault (crazy) or a nuclear one (crazier).
But Trump is a magnet for superior and superlative adjectives, such as “crazier” and “craziest.” How can we assume he would not order a nuclear attack? In such a case, we would hopefully see a slightly less crazy outcome: a military coup as the Joint Chiefs refuse to obey an order and refuse to resign.
But why with cruise missiles, which would not do much harm against dispersed and hardened targets and would likely trigger an artillery attack on Seoul and military targets? That leaves a ground assault (crazy) or a nuclear one (crazier).
But Trump is a magnet for superior and superlative adjectives, such as “crazier” and “craziest.” How can we assume he would not order a nuclear attack? In such a case, we would hopefully see a slightly less crazy outcome: a military coup as the Joint Chiefs refuse to obey an order and refuse to resign.
Eventually the US public must come to understand that the US does not and cannot rule Asia. We have neither the need nor the ability to resolve, through bombast, the disputes between North and South Korea, Taiwan and Mainland China, or the disputes between Zionists, Shiites and Sunnis in the Middle East. In trying to do so we simply put ourselves in jeopardy while making bad situations worse. Do not the results of our past interference not make that abundantly clear?
1
Completely agree. Our allies (and that certainly does NOT include China and never will) in Asia are valuable to us. As trading partners, as tourists back and forth, etc. I believe we can take a leadership role in understanding what our allies want and need, and understand what they fear for their citizens. As far as the mid-east, I think it's time to fold our tents and admit total defeat in the idea of progress. Let the people of Jordan, Israel,Lebanon-- semi-modern countries-- come to terms with each other and maybe lead that area of the world into modernity.
It's plain to see that Trump has recovered from the embarrassing and crippling case of heel spurs that kept him from demonstrating his true courage bona fides. Granted, the Oval Office isn't exactly Khe Sanh, and pushing a few keys to enter the launch codes (while dressed in a $10,000 suit and $1000 pair of shoes) doesn't quite match crouching in a shallow sandbag bunker in faded and sweat-and-blood-stained fatigues, but then courage comes in many forms, doesn't it?
1
In TrumpWorld what's to lose? The death of a few million "others"? The destruction of a couple large California cities? This would be a feature, not a bug. If the alternative to this is his being embarrassed and accused of being afraid to take strong action, it's a no-brainer. Thanks Comey.
1
Russia also shares a border with North Korea. From Google images, it would appear a very vigorous supply train network flows southward with goods and supplies. What role does Russia play in this complex web of relationships?
Two factors here to be considered:
1-Narcissit Trump, by threatening N Korea, cannot wait to show his muscle and with his trade mark of impulsiveness attack N Korean missile/nuclear sites.
2-The huge stakes South Korea has, in case of a US pre-emptive attack. The latter could lead to the destruction of a million citizens in S Korea, with minimum damage done US forces. (What will happen to Japan?)
All US will suffer is limited destruction of its military at the DMZ
Will China or Russia stand by idle at such a pre-emptive attack?
1-Narcissit Trump, by threatening N Korea, cannot wait to show his muscle and with his trade mark of impulsiveness attack N Korean missile/nuclear sites.
2-The huge stakes South Korea has, in case of a US pre-emptive attack. The latter could lead to the destruction of a million citizens in S Korea, with minimum damage done US forces. (What will happen to Japan?)
All US will suffer is limited destruction of its military at the DMZ
Will China or Russia stand by idle at such a pre-emptive attack?
All this missile testing by the North Koreans is a perfect way for the US military to test what it has learned from the billions and billions of dollars it has spent on SDI or "Star Wars", a program started in the 80's under Ronald Reagan. Why waste this opportunity. All this talk about a nuke reaching Los Angeles is scaremongering. Is the leader of North Korea really interested in lobbing nuclear tipped missiles our way for fun, knowing his regimes destruction would be assured?
Leftists, do you think all regimes are legitimate regardless of their behavior? And does legitimacy in the use of military force derive from the UN Security Council? The Council was bifurcated until the fall of the USSR. What about Rwanda or Kosovo? As Robert Cooper puts it in "The Breaking of Nations," get used to double standards -- it is the inescapable reality of our situation.
When America is operating in the paradise of liberal, almost pacifistic democracies, whose existences are based on American military power but who are often uneasy with its use, it must abide by the law; but when it goes into the jungle, it must operate by the law thereof. The legitimacy of American action stems from its values and its support for liberalism, which is why it mustn't become transactional.
On DPRK, we can work toward regime change by making contacts with higher-ups, assuring them of immunity in a post-Kim world. We can continue to try to subvert the propaganda of the regime and squeeze them economically. We can try to scare them into concessions. New Times employee Bret Stephens had the idea of pro-Beijing regime change. In any case, we need to come up with a strategy.
As we learned with Barack Obama, the world doesn't stop turning because you can't make up your mind. We're going to wake up one day, years from now, and DPRK is going to have a guidance system capable of putting an ICBM on Rodeo Drive. (The Times should write about DoD's Missile Defense Agency and its capabilities.)
When America is operating in the paradise of liberal, almost pacifistic democracies, whose existences are based on American military power but who are often uneasy with its use, it must abide by the law; but when it goes into the jungle, it must operate by the law thereof. The legitimacy of American action stems from its values and its support for liberalism, which is why it mustn't become transactional.
On DPRK, we can work toward regime change by making contacts with higher-ups, assuring them of immunity in a post-Kim world. We can continue to try to subvert the propaganda of the regime and squeeze them economically. We can try to scare them into concessions. New Times employee Bret Stephens had the idea of pro-Beijing regime change. In any case, we need to come up with a strategy.
As we learned with Barack Obama, the world doesn't stop turning because you can't make up your mind. We're going to wake up one day, years from now, and DPRK is going to have a guidance system capable of putting an ICBM on Rodeo Drive. (The Times should write about DoD's Missile Defense Agency and its capabilities.)
1
Your flippant ending to your comment "....an ICBM on Rodeo drive" reveals what you truly are-- an insecure bully. A person from the failed state of Miss. has no business making fun of the great state of CA-- your state's survival is reliant on us. Perhaps your young citizens would find a benefit to a major war-- it's better than hangin' out with no jobs or education to provide meaningful opportunities. Our people will NOT be going to the war follies, started by a nut, who the people in your state elected. Oh no, they will be sitting this disaster out en masse.
2
So, suppose North Korea develops nukes capable of reaching the West Coast.
Left alone, as in remaining a pariah regime, does Kim start a war? Surely he could, but he just as surely knows quite well that the cost of such a war would be his own death and the destruction of North Korea as we know it.
Is Kim that crazy?
Left alone, as in remaining a pariah regime, does Kim start a war? Surely he could, but he just as surely knows quite well that the cost of such a war would be his own death and the destruction of North Korea as we know it.
Is Kim that crazy?
So much reckless speculation and seeing what you want to see. So little actual analysis. You assume your conclusion and then speculate about how awful that will be. A very poor contribution from a normally excellent writer. I sincerely hope he was on deadline.
I disagree with your solution.
Remember Clinton signed an agreement with North Korea to halt their nuclear weapons. It actually aided their development by lifting sanctions.
While none of us outsiders have all the information. From my view, the only solution is
1) Rapid crushing sanctions of North Korea. Such as an oil embargo paired with a naval blockade sponsored by the UN
2) With North Korea imperiled, we work out a safe exit for Kim and his cronies. China and Russia oiled by lots of US cash
3) We go about the process of rebuilding North Korea as a Chinese and Russian satellite
If step (1) never happens. Then I am afraid we have no option but to invade North Korea, we simply cannot allow Kim with nuclear ICBMs capable of hitting multiple US cities.
It's not North Korea. It's Kim. All North Koreans are treated as slaves by him
Love him or hate him, this appears to be Trump's plan, and I have yet to see anyone else come up with anything workable. Hoping that Kim doesn't use his nukes on us or sell them to ISIS is a nightmare. Another Clinton-like agreement, as you suggest may be worse. I am not willing to put my families life on the line due to your hatred for Trump.
The Clinton/Obama appeasement tactic has not worked. What next? He nuked Hawaii, let's work out an agreement so he promises not to nuke us again?
Remember Clinton signed an agreement with North Korea to halt their nuclear weapons. It actually aided their development by lifting sanctions.
While none of us outsiders have all the information. From my view, the only solution is
1) Rapid crushing sanctions of North Korea. Such as an oil embargo paired with a naval blockade sponsored by the UN
2) With North Korea imperiled, we work out a safe exit for Kim and his cronies. China and Russia oiled by lots of US cash
3) We go about the process of rebuilding North Korea as a Chinese and Russian satellite
If step (1) never happens. Then I am afraid we have no option but to invade North Korea, we simply cannot allow Kim with nuclear ICBMs capable of hitting multiple US cities.
It's not North Korea. It's Kim. All North Koreans are treated as slaves by him
Love him or hate him, this appears to be Trump's plan, and I have yet to see anyone else come up with anything workable. Hoping that Kim doesn't use his nukes on us or sell them to ISIS is a nightmare. Another Clinton-like agreement, as you suggest may be worse. I am not willing to put my families life on the line due to your hatred for Trump.
The Clinton/Obama appeasement tactic has not worked. What next? He nuked Hawaii, let's work out an agreement so he promises not to nuke us again?
1
Trump's foreign policy so far is to act like a a bully in the sandbox--then depend on a parent to apologize and pull him out (Mattis, McMaster or the various Congressmen who travelled during the transition to reassure our allies to not take Trump "either literally or metaphorically"). N. Korea is another sandbox bully with only a distant uncle China as parent--without adult supervision Trump could literally blow things up.
Given Trump's focus on golf and personal enrichment, it is hard to feel any optimism regarding foreign policy.
1
North Korea's Nuclear Bomb is not just to protect it's country from USA, it's also to protect itself from China. No one seems to be talking about this. Kim Il Sung (grand father of Kim Jung Eun) who is considered as a founding father of North Korea's communist regime told it's people that the most important thing for it's people to remember is "Ju Che (Self Reliance)" specially after Japanese occupation of Korea for 36 years and the influence paddling of China and Japan prior to 1910 when Japan won the war against China and occupied Korea. Kim's family's legacy to the population of NK is that all else should be sacrificed to uphold this one theme. Its almost like a national religion. I think it's time that USA recognize Kim Jung Eun as the legitimate government power in North Korea and take the lead (instead of asking China) in calling for negotiation of how to stop further expanding NK's nuclear power and how to help to achieve this goal together with South Korea. China does not want North Korea to become another USA friendly nation on their border. And this is precisely the reason why USA should take the lead. North Korea started to develop their Nuclear ambition after China signed a diplomatic and economic relation with South Korea in 1992. People do not realize this.
1
The silly Mr. Kristof is concerned with what a "rogue" U.S. President might do, not with the consequences of a determined North Korean madness, a madness resulting in a country driven by mass hysteria.
The tender mercies of previous administrations has brought the world to this point, looking down the barrel of an ICBM, soon to be tipped with a nuclear weapon.
What exactly does the Grand Strategist, Mr. Kristof, propose to do, other than write more op-eds?
The tender mercies of previous administrations has brought the world to this point, looking down the barrel of an ICBM, soon to be tipped with a nuclear weapon.
What exactly does the Grand Strategist, Mr. Kristof, propose to do, other than write more op-eds?
4
Well, Trump understands that in any war he starts, he will not have to even one trigger nor drop even one bomb. He (nor ANY politician for that matter) will not have to see the dead and dying up close, nor the limbs and bodies of those already dead. He should visit some of the yet-living survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - for that is what a great part of the world will look like before it fades into radioactive nothingness. A new war will be nothing like the old ones we continually start......
Bombard North Korea with media images of life in South Korea and the Western world. That would whet the public's appetite for regime change.
1
North Koreans are well aware of the lifestyles in South Korea, China and even the US. There is a popular black market in cell phones, videos etc. The people of North Korea are moving towards changing their oppressive government. But actions by the US might push them back to supporting their rulers.
Source: a recent Frontline program.
Source: a recent Frontline program.
Two deranged leaders, both itching for war, and millions of innocent people who will pay the price. Let's hope Mattis can hold sway here. Someone has to.
1
Whatever happens, or not, vis-à-vis North Korea, as Mr. Kristof declares in his final sentence, "Heaven help us!" We're doing one lousy job helping ourselves.
1
The only sane option is not to "apply relentless pressure" that will lead nowhere or to war. But to open relations with North Korea. A complete 180* in our policy. Start trading and getting some business started. The consequences of war are much more complicated and drastic than the few things mentioned here. Nixon opened a real relationship with China even though it was considered an enemy at the time. No where near the isolation and erratic behavior of North Korea. But the same principle still applies. War with China was and is unthinkable. As it is with Russia. Sanctions are just helping starve the N Korean population. .......
I bet Trump & Kim would get along great. 'Birds of a feather' .. and all
Orange, NJ
I bet Trump & Kim would get along great. 'Birds of a feather' .. and all
Orange, NJ
1
Don't bet the farm that Mattis can talk Trump off the pre-emptive ledge. Trump has been emboldened by his recent missile adventures in Syria and Afghanistan. When he perceives that his actions have resulted in adulation or praise, he often doubles-down. This is what makes him as unstable and dangerous as his bad-hair doppelganger in North Korea. God help us all.
Kim Jong Un is a certifiable madman. What isn't certifiable is his intelligence. Because he's mad, because he's littleaving and somewhat silly, it is easy to underestimate him as a threat...or overestimate him as well. It is that danger along with Trump's impulsiveness, that looms.
Instead of of battle involving millions of soldiers and casualties, why not take out Kim Jong-un individually? He is the problem.
1
The trouble is, a "win" for DT would be to simply get through 4 years without a horrific conflaguration with N Korea...but I doubt he could contemplate as much.
Nuclear Deterrence is the only answer to prevent nuclear war.
The late dictator of Libya apparently did give-up his nukes.
Actually I can't recall exactly, but w/o his nukes scaring everybody, he was apparently vulnerable, and ended up dying in a sewer underground escape attempt.
Gee whiz, I am too perplexed to make jokes about WMD disarmament.
"Kha-daffy" seemingly to me at least got a stupid deal, and humanity ultimately pays.
Dr. Assad noticed.
(I have no good alternative to propose, so never mind.)
Actually I can't recall exactly, but w/o his nukes scaring everybody, he was apparently vulnerable, and ended up dying in a sewer underground escape attempt.
Gee whiz, I am too perplexed to make jokes about WMD disarmament.
"Kha-daffy" seemingly to me at least got a stupid deal, and humanity ultimately pays.
Dr. Assad noticed.
(I have no good alternative to propose, so never mind.)
1
Amazing how glib many Americans are about using nuclear bombs. As if it would be done in HDTV and not real life! Are we so removed from reality?
I agree with Mr. Kristof let the people of north korea continue to live with a maniac as their leader. Millions have already died in the north, what difference does it make if millions more die? Let's continue to do nothing and pretend like we really care. That is what liberals do right????
Even scarier than Trump's "blundering into a new Korean war" is Trump's deliberate creation of a new Korean war, which will undoubtedly feature signature branding, video-gamelike television coverage, bemedaled or beknighted spokespeople fanning out across the media landscape, and a primetime speech from the Dear Leader containing manufactured adverbs and vaguely menacing hand gestures. And that's just in the U.S.
Those parades looked pretty good. I think the N Koreans are here to stay and they cannot be as 'crazy' and 'starving' as we are told. What is N Korea all about? The last great socialist country? I don't think we're looking at this right. Maybe Trump and Kim should get together in Geneva or Beijing.
Getting rid of trump might be easier than getting rid of Kim Jong Un. Let's go for the win and bonus by getting rid of trump. Many problems solved at once.
1
The way things are going, let's hope he doesn't confuse North Korea with North Dakota.
1
Does a nuclear winter have any effect on global warming?
Kristof is a keen observer and balanced thinker. His last sentence "Then Heaven help us" makes me shudder.
3
We have two madmen heading up both countries - the USA and North Korea. Hard to believe that one of them was elected democratically. Heaven help us.
4
If you call the US election rigged by the Russians "Democratic."
He wasn't elected democratically. He wouldn't have ''won'' without the massive Russian influence. Nor without the very undemocratic voter-suppression laws around the country. I live in Wisconsin, and I know for a fact that the voter ID laws here substantially suppressed democratic votes. Plus Walker and his gang always game every election. That's how he survived the recall.
There is a dilemma here: patience has failed, North Korea grows more dangerous, and we can't count on this regime always regarding its arsenal as a mere deterrent to ensure its own survival. I fear both Trump's irrationality and what could be his perverse reasoning: would he see the enormous cost of a war in Korea as something that would devastate our trading rivals, while ending the potential threat to the US mainland from Korean missiles? That strikes me as the kind of calculus he might make: based on rivalry as the underlying principle of all human relations, very short-sighted, and without regard for human costs or any moral judgment.
3
Evidently, America believes in "a let's wait and see" form of governance, it's how every previous administration in the last 50 years has handled immigration, healthcare and now N. Korea. Not a great strategy it seems because these three things are now in chaos.
Over the years, our politicians looked the other way when hearing about how many Mexican nationals were seen illegally moving to our country. . . They did nothing until suddenly there are almost 11 million Mexicans here. With healthcare, the politicians watched while more Americans died or were burdened with bankruptcy b/c the healthcare industry did what it wanted. And now, another ignorant republican thinks war is the answer . . .
Our saving grace though may be the extravagant lifestyle Trump feels entitled to enjoy at the expense of taxpayers, and once payout begins on the subsides and cuts for the wealthy, hopefully they'll realize what GW learned; war and tax cuts bankrupt a nation. We should make sure Trump learns this lesson.
Over the years, our politicians looked the other way when hearing about how many Mexican nationals were seen illegally moving to our country. . . They did nothing until suddenly there are almost 11 million Mexicans here. With healthcare, the politicians watched while more Americans died or were burdened with bankruptcy b/c the healthcare industry did what it wanted. And now, another ignorant republican thinks war is the answer . . .
Our saving grace though may be the extravagant lifestyle Trump feels entitled to enjoy at the expense of taxpayers, and once payout begins on the subsides and cuts for the wealthy, hopefully they'll realize what GW learned; war and tax cuts bankrupt a nation. We should make sure Trump learns this lesson.
1
I'm unsure how younger Americans feel, who have not lived through this before, but I distinctly don't appreciate waking up every morning wondering if my country's leaders are mad enough or sufficiently belligerent and incompetent to precipitate a nuclear war or. short of that, simultaneous conventional wars on the top of ones we are already fighting without Constitutional authorization.
Neither do I appreciate having to wonder whether the President, Vice President, U.N. Ambassador, the Cabinet, and the U.S. military and military command are all on the same page, in the face of evidence that they decidedly are not. It is very disturbing that Captain Wrongway Peachfuzz seems in command of Trump's "armada" or that Trump himself is the orange-haired reincarnation of that Rocky & Bullwinkle Show Cold War cartoon character.
One did not have to agree with President Obama to rest assured that, at least, someone was in control who was appropriately cognizant of the risks in foreign policy and military action. Neither did one have to agree with President Bush to rest assured that someone (Vice President Cheney; Secretaries Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell) was in control who was appropriately cognizant of the risks in foreign policy and military action. If American citizens must worry, our allies must be worried. And that is even more worrisome.
Agree or not - and we can't know with whom or with what we are agreeing or not - this administration is failing in fundamental, dangerous respects.
Neither do I appreciate having to wonder whether the President, Vice President, U.N. Ambassador, the Cabinet, and the U.S. military and military command are all on the same page, in the face of evidence that they decidedly are not. It is very disturbing that Captain Wrongway Peachfuzz seems in command of Trump's "armada" or that Trump himself is the orange-haired reincarnation of that Rocky & Bullwinkle Show Cold War cartoon character.
One did not have to agree with President Obama to rest assured that, at least, someone was in control who was appropriately cognizant of the risks in foreign policy and military action. Neither did one have to agree with President Bush to rest assured that someone (Vice President Cheney; Secretaries Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell) was in control who was appropriately cognizant of the risks in foreign policy and military action. If American citizens must worry, our allies must be worried. And that is even more worrisome.
Agree or not - and we can't know with whom or with what we are agreeing or not - this administration is failing in fundamental, dangerous respects.
118
There are other options, and KJ Un has already seen one of them. Namely, the formation of an alternate North Korean government in exile (by someone like his brother - the one he just picked off), then make clear to the generals that they'll be immune to prosecution if they switch sides, then pick off the great leader.
1
I don't believe that our president has the intelligence, the wisdom, the patience or the knowledge to play the long game with North Korea. Nuance is not his strength. He is blunt and simpleminded to a fault.
If the North Koreans should successfully test a long range missile, I believe our president would respond immediately by following the advise of those in the political and military establishment who believe that the only way to rein in the North Koreans is with a military response.
The results would be catastrophic for the region, as your commentators make clear. I believe it would engage most of the world as every country tries to turn the conflict to their advantage. It would turn the world on its head.
It would also give our president the crisis he needs to change our country. Perhaps it would be the excuse to take away some of our freedoms, like freedom of the press or the freedom to assemble peacefully. It would give him the excuse to emulate his friend and inspiration, Vladimir Putin. We need to find a legal way to remove this man from office before he is allowed to create worldwide chaos.
If the North Koreans should successfully test a long range missile, I believe our president would respond immediately by following the advise of those in the political and military establishment who believe that the only way to rein in the North Koreans is with a military response.
The results would be catastrophic for the region, as your commentators make clear. I believe it would engage most of the world as every country tries to turn the conflict to their advantage. It would turn the world on its head.
It would also give our president the crisis he needs to change our country. Perhaps it would be the excuse to take away some of our freedoms, like freedom of the press or the freedom to assemble peacefully. It would give him the excuse to emulate his friend and inspiration, Vladimir Putin. We need to find a legal way to remove this man from office before he is allowed to create worldwide chaos.
22
“The era of strategic patience is over” might be a bold statement to make, in fact, very Trumpian sounding even when hearing Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Tillerson repeat it every chance they get. However, what is “strategic patience” being replaced with? And, don’t give us that other lame Trumpian line about “holding his cards very close to his chest.” Because most Americans interpret that as “a man without a plan.” More importantly, “tactical impatience” that results in blunders, such as, the one announcing a U.S. armada was headed towards North Korea when it was actually going the opposite way, reveal a foreign policy operation in chaos. So let’s not replace “strategic patience” with “impulsive chaos” and make a bad situation worse.
9
Despite Trump's criticisms and insults of Bush about Iraq, he has learned very early the Presidential benefits of military action and war. With low approval ratings, the blunder of trying to repeal and replace ACA, and now all of the conflicts he faces with tax reform, the missile strike in Syria has unfortunately been the highlight of his first 100 days. Even the Dems and other detractors were singing his praises for a moment, and Trump relishes admiration. Most of us remember how quickly Bush went from being a joke to being the leader of the War on Terror after 9/11.
We need a bipartisan agreement to get Trump's attention refocused on domestic issues. The main reason that we have not engaged North Korea is that every President since Eisenhower learned from the 1st Korean war that the last thing we need is a 2nd Korean war. American's don't want another unwinnable war, but if Trump gets us into one, our patriotic culture will demand that we support him and our armed forces and will almost certainly guarantee him reelection if it drags on long enough.
We need a bipartisan agreement to get Trump's attention refocused on domestic issues. The main reason that we have not engaged North Korea is that every President since Eisenhower learned from the 1st Korean war that the last thing we need is a 2nd Korean war. American's don't want another unwinnable war, but if Trump gets us into one, our patriotic culture will demand that we support him and our armed forces and will almost certainly guarantee him reelection if it drags on long enough.
35
For 50 years the US had determined that using military action to overthrow the rogue regime would be too costly and every year the price of not doing anything goes up.
Nuclear annihilation is the most pressing existential threat that the human race will face for as long as we inhabit this planet. It is paramount that the world get together now to figure out an effective way to prevent nuclear proliferation. Addressing the NK issue with overwhelming pressure on the regime, or force if necessary, should be linked to a global initiative that recognizes this overwhelming danger and works towards a real solution.
Nuclear annihilation is the most pressing existential threat that the human race will face for as long as we inhabit this planet. It is paramount that the world get together now to figure out an effective way to prevent nuclear proliferation. Addressing the NK issue with overwhelming pressure on the regime, or force if necessary, should be linked to a global initiative that recognizes this overwhelming danger and works towards a real solution.
3
The problem with us and the North Koreans is that we are dealing with the man/child who is the leader of each country. Both of whom are reacting like a 6th grader on a playground, they are incapable of backing down. The only player on the international scene who has influence with both countries is China. This is the same China that Trump went out of his way to insult during his campaign.
The visit to Mar a Tacky by President Xi and two days of meetings was a good first step in repairing the damage Trump has done to the relationship. It remains to be seen if the Chinese are sufficiently mollified to restrain North Korea from further provocations.
We have a real problem when we need to rely on President Xi of China to be the adult in the room. We may have some common interests with China, but make no mistake, China is not our friend.
The visit to Mar a Tacky by President Xi and two days of meetings was a good first step in repairing the damage Trump has done to the relationship. It remains to be seen if the Chinese are sufficiently mollified to restrain North Korea from further provocations.
We have a real problem when we need to rely on President Xi of China to be the adult in the room. We may have some common interests with China, but make no mistake, China is not our friend.
7
My fear is that the next time Trump makes an empty threat the North Koreans will use it as an excuse to eliminate South Korea and Japan. It will catch Trump with his pants down, so we will respond late and then probably over -respond, leaving the East with a nuclear waste problem that will make Fukushima look like nothing. My bigger fear, though, is that Korea will be able to reach the West Coast of the US. I suspect Trump would be happy with that.
2
The video playing at the North Korea leaders birthday shows a missile strike on San Francisco, published by CNN, to great applause by all attendees. This is their plan.
I suppose articles and editorials about all the horrors in the world exist.
I wonder what scenarios are acceptable if one million casualties and $1 trillion in damage are too much? The 'what if' question can be fun to ask. But, as long as it continues to be entertained, the follow-up question must be along the lines of,
'Why is it so much fun to ask the first question?'
I wonder what scenarios are acceptable if one million casualties and $1 trillion in damage are too much? The 'what if' question can be fun to ask. But, as long as it continues to be entertained, the follow-up question must be along the lines of,
'Why is it so much fun to ask the first question?'
1
Seems like we have a bunch of "experts" here including Mr. Kristof. This so called rogue president has appointed one of the greatest military minds in my 71 year old lifetime. President Obama had a revolving door for this office. The Korean threat is real and significant as President Obama conveyed to President Trump. President Trump's Syrian military action was even praised by the key democrats. What makes a man who doesn't have access to the same information as Secretary Mattis and the POTUS believe he's got a serious hold on the truth here? As a resident of California with one life and one piece of property not covered for an act of war, I'd like to see the POTUS continue on what has been to date excellent handling of foreign aggression and acts of aggression.
2
"This so called rogue president has appointed one of the greatest military minds in my 71 year old lifetime."
And what of the armada debacle and what could easily have happened? It makes that great military mind and the minds of the other two great generals look like Larry, Moe and Curly, all of whom regularly considered themselves to be geniuses.
And what of the armada debacle and what could easily have happened? It makes that great military mind and the minds of the other two great generals look like Larry, Moe and Curly, all of whom regularly considered themselves to be geniuses.
6
Yes, Trump has appointed some competent generals. He has also appointed some highly incompetent secretaries -- Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, Ben Carson,
Linda McMahon, Mick Mulvaney to name a few -- and his initial elevation of Steve Bannon and two 30-year-olds distrusted by the CIA to the NSC was certainly not the work of a brilliant military tactician.
Linda McMahon, Mick Mulvaney to name a few -- and his initial elevation of Steve Bannon and two 30-year-olds distrusted by the CIA to the NSC was certainly not the work of a brilliant military tactician.
I'm old enough to have lived through the beginning of the atomic age, the Alger Hiss case and the Rosenberg trial, exercises where we ducked under our tiny school desks in case of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, the fallout shelter hysteria, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then we held steady over both Democratic and Republican Administrations, to an ultimately successful policy of "detente" and the "strategic patience" of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) where both sides knew that a first-strike would lead to their destruction. The hysteria surrounding North Korea, an infinitely less formidable threat than the Soviet Union, is reminiscent of what I, as a child and adolescent, and America experienced in the 1950's. Yes, we have two very unstable and potentially MAD leaders in Kim Jong-un in North Korea and Donald Trump here, but we need to stop the sabre-rattling and re-embrace "strategic patience" that, as it did with the Soviet Union, will eventually, and hopefully with the assistance of China lead to North Korea's economic collapse as they find an arms race with the U.S. economically unsustainable. The alternative is nuclear Armageddon.
10
A "preemptive strike" will not be caused by some sudden change in the situation, but rather from continued provocation. If it could cause 1M in casualties and $1T in damages, then it should be authorized by Congress, as required by the Constitution. What is the Congressional majority party doing to have a public debate before the US stumbles into another Asian ground war?
13
World war III here we come. As you state, the results in casualties would be catastrophic. China must do something because the impact of doing nothing is simply not acceptable. A pre-emptive strike would lead to disaster.
6
I'm not too worried about North Korea having a larger standing army. The Korean's People's Army suffered somewhere around 500,000 killed or wounded in the first Korean War. Compare that with 62,000 on the US side. You have a kill ratio of 8 to 1. When you factor in the People's Volunteer Army of China, the ratio essentially doubles. 16 to 1.
Even when you include the South Korean military casualties, the US is still incredibly more efficient at killing people than it's adversaries. I know one veteran that had 17 confirmed kills which fits conveniently with the average. He couldn't even remember how many unconfirmed kills. Cruel math but that's what militaries do. They kill people. You might want to think about that the next time a military spending budget comes up.
The problem, as always, is civilian casualties. That's why there's no viable military option. We don't know how many will die but you can safely assume the number is orders of magnitude higher than US casualties. So what now?
Well, Mr. Kristof missed the easiest explanation. Each President has the choice to either confront the hideous human cost of a non-nuclear North Korea or stall for time and hope to pass the hot potato to the next administration. So far, every President has opted for the second option. If the trend continues, US policy essentially accepts Kim's nuclear program without saying so. Otherwise, some President has to cash out the tab and go down in infamy. Rest assured they'll be remembered.
Even when you include the South Korean military casualties, the US is still incredibly more efficient at killing people than it's adversaries. I know one veteran that had 17 confirmed kills which fits conveniently with the average. He couldn't even remember how many unconfirmed kills. Cruel math but that's what militaries do. They kill people. You might want to think about that the next time a military spending budget comes up.
The problem, as always, is civilian casualties. That's why there's no viable military option. We don't know how many will die but you can safely assume the number is orders of magnitude higher than US casualties. So what now?
Well, Mr. Kristof missed the easiest explanation. Each President has the choice to either confront the hideous human cost of a non-nuclear North Korea or stall for time and hope to pass the hot potato to the next administration. So far, every President has opted for the second option. If the trend continues, US policy essentially accepts Kim's nuclear program without saying so. Otherwise, some President has to cash out the tab and go down in infamy. Rest assured they'll be remembered.
2
But for China, North Korea would have been out of business by the end of 1950. The Chinese, whom the current North Korean leader's grandfather hated so much, were the ones that saved his bacon.
1
Want2know:
Yes. The Chinese entered the war but I wouldn't say the decision was made willingly. The effort was decidedly under coercion from a dominant Stalinist Russia. At the time, Mao's revolution and a secure communist China were uncertain. China argued against intervention and actually argued against Kim Il-Sung's invasion in the first place. At the time though, you jumped when Stalin said jump.
For their part, North Koreans didn't want help from China either. The Chinese left about as bad an imperial legacy on the Korean peninsula as the Japanese. Getting saved by your former masters doesn't look great for the newly formed Kim dynasty. They would have preferred direct support from the Russians. Stalin sent China instead in order to keep himself away from direct conflict with the United States. Mao reluctantly complied.
Hence, we have the uncomfortable communist entente of the Asian community we witness today. Not so simple, right?
Yes. The Chinese entered the war but I wouldn't say the decision was made willingly. The effort was decidedly under coercion from a dominant Stalinist Russia. At the time, Mao's revolution and a secure communist China were uncertain. China argued against intervention and actually argued against Kim Il-Sung's invasion in the first place. At the time though, you jumped when Stalin said jump.
For their part, North Koreans didn't want help from China either. The Chinese left about as bad an imperial legacy on the Korean peninsula as the Japanese. Getting saved by your former masters doesn't look great for the newly formed Kim dynasty. They would have preferred direct support from the Russians. Stalin sent China instead in order to keep himself away from direct conflict with the United States. Mao reluctantly complied.
Hence, we have the uncomfortable communist entente of the Asian community we witness today. Not so simple, right?
1
In 1991 at the time of its independence Ukraine had 1900 strategic nuclear and many more tactical nuclear weapons, missiles, and bombers before it removed them and returned them to Russia under the US-Russia Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/ukraine-nuclear-disarmament/
http://www.nti.org/learn/glossary/#cooperative-threat-reduction-nunn-lug...
Does anyone think that Putin would have attacked a nuclear armed Ukraine?
Would the United States have attacked a nuclear armed Libya?
The calculus of the costs of conflict and nuclear devastation tends to preserve the status quo.
Given time, Germany has been re-united, divided Ireland has become peaceful, and Europeans (with or without the English) have developed a European identity after centuries of bloody conflict.
Sixty years after the Korean War why is Korea still divided? The Koreans, North and South, are one people.
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/ukraine-nuclear-disarmament/
http://www.nti.org/learn/glossary/#cooperative-threat-reduction-nunn-lug...
Does anyone think that Putin would have attacked a nuclear armed Ukraine?
Would the United States have attacked a nuclear armed Libya?
The calculus of the costs of conflict and nuclear devastation tends to preserve the status quo.
Given time, Germany has been re-united, divided Ireland has become peaceful, and Europeans (with or without the English) have developed a European identity after centuries of bloody conflict.
Sixty years after the Korean War why is Korea still divided? The Koreans, North and South, are one people.
6
I agree that Trump will probably behave less rationally than other US presidents would. But what kind of missile is it in the test scenario that Kristof has in mind? I think that ANY US president, Trump or otherwise, would attack a North Korean ICBM launch site to prevent it from being deployed. That is a red line for the US: it will not accept a North Korean nuclear deterrent that could strike the US. I'm sure there's complete continuity between administrations on that point.
I also disagree that Mattis is a moderate on this. He's probably a hard-liner relative to past US-North Korean relations. The soft position is to open direct negotiations and see what the North Koreans really want. Mattis isn't going to push for that.
We don't really have any good options, though. Direct negotiations create a moral hazard, and the North will break the promises it makes if there is a deal. But relying on China to talk to North Korea probably also won't work. You can try to spread anti-regime propaganda (/accurate information), but that would obviously be viewed as a provocation by the regime. One major motivation they have for saber-rattling in the first place is that they want to strengthen their domestic political position, so they're going to be a touch sensitive about deliberate attempts to undermine it.
The best among unsatisfactory options is probably going to be to try to lower tensions so that things don't spiral out of control. Trump probably isn't capable of doing that.
I also disagree that Mattis is a moderate on this. He's probably a hard-liner relative to past US-North Korean relations. The soft position is to open direct negotiations and see what the North Koreans really want. Mattis isn't going to push for that.
We don't really have any good options, though. Direct negotiations create a moral hazard, and the North will break the promises it makes if there is a deal. But relying on China to talk to North Korea probably also won't work. You can try to spread anti-regime propaganda (/accurate information), but that would obviously be viewed as a provocation by the regime. One major motivation they have for saber-rattling in the first place is that they want to strengthen their domestic political position, so they're going to be a touch sensitive about deliberate attempts to undermine it.
The best among unsatisfactory options is probably going to be to try to lower tensions so that things don't spiral out of control. Trump probably isn't capable of doing that.
37
I think we have to accept that there are two options:
(A) Take military action now and risk a devastating war that will probably lead to leveling Seoul and millions dead.
(B) “Let" North Korea build as many nuclear armed missiles as it wants that can target any city they desire and accept the logic of nuclear deterrence that worked with the Soviet Union. In this case, the US would need to provide/reinforce security guarantees to neighboring countries regarding North Korean actions (ideally with China’s blessing) to avoid an Asian arms race.
I prefer option B, but it is politically unacceptable to talk about this. The regime isn't suicidal--quite the contrary. (B) would just reinforce the status quo . Probably over the next few decades the regime will either moderate or collapse.
(A) Take military action now and risk a devastating war that will probably lead to leveling Seoul and millions dead.
(B) “Let" North Korea build as many nuclear armed missiles as it wants that can target any city they desire and accept the logic of nuclear deterrence that worked with the Soviet Union. In this case, the US would need to provide/reinforce security guarantees to neighboring countries regarding North Korean actions (ideally with China’s blessing) to avoid an Asian arms race.
I prefer option B, but it is politically unacceptable to talk about this. The regime isn't suicidal--quite the contrary. (B) would just reinforce the status quo . Probably over the next few decades the regime will either moderate or collapse.
7
I have an issue with option (B).
MAD is not the optimal deterrent.
Let's say Kim's economy suffered worse and we were not responding to his blackmail.
He could launch a few ICBMs at LA, some would almost certainly hit, and threaten us with more were we to respond. Thus giving us a terrible choice.
1) Allow Kim's destruction of LA to go unanswered and pay his ransom
2) Wipe out North Korea, with the knowledge that even more devastation would be perpetrated on America, a double poison pill.
someone please give me a (C)
MAD is not the optimal deterrent.
Let's say Kim's economy suffered worse and we were not responding to his blackmail.
He could launch a few ICBMs at LA, some would almost certainly hit, and threaten us with more were we to respond. Thus giving us a terrible choice.
1) Allow Kim's destruction of LA to go unanswered and pay his ransom
2) Wipe out North Korea, with the knowledge that even more devastation would be perpetrated on America, a double poison pill.
someone please give me a (C)
2
Like Iran, the PRK is, not so integrated into the world culture and economy that one can expect further integration to the point of moderation. On the contrary, N Korea might retain military intimidation as a means to economic advantage, even as movement toward integration might move the PRK toward a near collapse that triggers external aggression. Option B is less benign than jts proponent suggests.
As Nick Kristof amply illustrates, this is an impossible situation, only made worse by the fact that we have a nincompoop in charge on our side of the equation. Kim is by all accounts a dreadful, unpredictable punk with nukes. Trump is, well, an older version of his adversary (right down to an otherworldly hairdo). When push comes to shove -NK bomb test or another sputtering ICBM shot or border provocations- I think we can count on Trump to bellow like an enraged war elephant, blunder badly ("where is my armada??"), and then get itchy to pull a trigger he shouldn't be anywhere near. Let's hope that Mattis and other adults can control their boss and the situation when we all get too close to the edge.
15
Very few people understand the mass psychosis of North Korea. The cult of Kim keeps 25 million people psychologically hostage from cradle to grave. What alternative is there to Kim Jong Un? The US, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea must openly declare their oposition to a continuation of the Kim cult and do everything in their power to co-opt the military and security apparatus to overthrow Kim and move away from the family dictatorship. This will leave the nukes and a military regime, but that is one step towards a far better situation for the country and its citizens. As long as Kim stands, there will be no change in the DPRK that reduces the threat to the rest of the world and the misery of millions of Koreans who deserve much better.
4
"As long as Kim stands, there will be no change in the DPRK..."
Exactly. Change--meaning a more open economy and society--would mean the end of Kim's rule.
Exactly. Change--meaning a more open economy and society--would mean the end of Kim's rule.
Do you really think the US could just march in and remove Kim, and the rest would stay untouched? The country would be in ashes, and everything surrounding it, too.
One cannot help but think, that the appeasement and restraint scenarios cited by Mr. Kristof are the usual hot air of "armchair strategiasters" and 'Intellectasters". The Occident must put its act together and deal firmly with the rogue states endangering the relative world peace, as well as the states that quietly finance and support the Islamic penetration of the West, with the ultimate goal of its subjugation and/or annihilation.
Aye, let slip the dogs of war and the neutrons and gamma rays, too.
[ref Shakespeare with full irony]
[ref Shakespeare with full irony]
1
I recently watched footage of the latest North Korean 'celebration' and what a joyous event it was. Happy people everywhere. I watched hundreds upon hundreds of soldiers goose-stepping in perfect formation, heads turned right towards the reviewing stand. A truly frightening spectacle of a people so subjugated by their government any person marching would fear for his life if he wasn't in perfect control of his movements. Then there were all the missiles...These are horrific people you don't want to mess without the utmost thought and care that must come before any action is taken. Hugely risky. But we have a president who thinks it is OK to tweet threats. Let's hope he continues to tweet away and not start throwing bombs. North Korea is not Syria or Afghanistan.
3
China can only go so far in pressuring North Korea. The big worry is of course the approximately 18000 howitzer tubes trained on the City of Seoul. There would be massive damage and loss of life.
Given that the North Koreans will not yield up there weapons and that we have an unstable President surrounded by many unqualified cabinet officers and many other sycophants there is certainly a strong fear Trump will crack under the strain and launch a missile attack.
Trump is an unprincipled leader, who has seen his Syrian attack drive the Russian story from the front pages and had many of our less gifted citizens cheering the violence as a solution.
I would not for a minute bet against the idea that Trump will start a war with either North Korea or Iran as a panacea for his so far failed presidency...
Given that the North Koreans will not yield up there weapons and that we have an unstable President surrounded by many unqualified cabinet officers and many other sycophants there is certainly a strong fear Trump will crack under the strain and launch a missile attack.
Trump is an unprincipled leader, who has seen his Syrian attack drive the Russian story from the front pages and had many of our less gifted citizens cheering the violence as a solution.
I would not for a minute bet against the idea that Trump will start a war with either North Korea or Iran as a panacea for his so far failed presidency...
6
The only deal Trump cares about when it comes to China is Ivanka's trademark fashion industry. She secured billions of dollars of sales after Xi's visit to Florida. Now we know what is really taking place there every weekend. Business deals for the family which is ethically and morally reprehensible and unlawful, but without visitor logs, hard to prove. They have not separated business and government but are using his office for financial gain. Of course, Sean will lie all the way to the bank about this if asked.
67
I completely agree with the analysis and have believed for years that North Korea and Pakistan harbored the greatest potential for nuclear mishap. Enter Trump and the scary possibilities of his 3 a.m. look in the mirror, devices in hand. One possible tactic not mentioned-the US has the best nefarious clandestine treachery machine in the world. Assassinate Kim Jon-un and create internal chaos. The sanity of this approach hinges on how their chain of command is designed to succeed him and assumes there's no one in line as crazy and unstable as he. There's no hope North Korea will ever be a world player without regime change. Unfortunately we are at the point of a lesser of many evils choice.
2
I've wondered for a while now how Kim has avoided assassination. Surely there are a number of intelligence services around the globe who would be happy to see him removed. It is a testament to the effectiveness of the DPRK's security forces that Kim continues to live.
I appreciate your mentioning Pakistan, too, though I wouldn't give India a pass either. I've always thought that if I saw a nuclear exchange in my lifetime it would involve these two powers. Recently the Times ran this article on possible changes to India's nuclear strategy, including growing acceptance of "first-use" in the case of a Pakistani attack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/world/asia/india-long-at-odds-with-pa...
"New assessments suggest that India is considering allowing for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Pakistan’s arsenal in the event of a war. This would not formally change India’s nuclear doctrine, which bars it from launching a first strike, but would loosen its interpretation to deem pre-emptive strikes as defensive.
It would also change India’s likely targets, in the event of a war, to make a nuclear exchange more winnable and, therefore, more thinkable."
I can't begin to fathom how this Administration would react to the use of nuclear weapons in the Subcontinent. While I imagine that policy planners at Defense and State have given the matter considerable thought, I doubt it has been discussed with our dimwitted President.
I appreciate your mentioning Pakistan, too, though I wouldn't give India a pass either. I've always thought that if I saw a nuclear exchange in my lifetime it would involve these two powers. Recently the Times ran this article on possible changes to India's nuclear strategy, including growing acceptance of "first-use" in the case of a Pakistani attack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/world/asia/india-long-at-odds-with-pa...
"New assessments suggest that India is considering allowing for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Pakistan’s arsenal in the event of a war. This would not formally change India’s nuclear doctrine, which bars it from launching a first strike, but would loosen its interpretation to deem pre-emptive strikes as defensive.
It would also change India’s likely targets, in the event of a war, to make a nuclear exchange more winnable and, therefore, more thinkable."
I can't begin to fathom how this Administration would react to the use of nuclear weapons in the Subcontinent. While I imagine that policy planners at Defense and State have given the matter considerable thought, I doubt it has been discussed with our dimwitted President.
1
China doesn't have enough good reasons to help us with North Korea.
Is there any reason to think that China doesn't benefit and enjoy watching us waste time, energy and resources worrying about this bizarre regime?
It's almost certain that China is not worried in any way that North Korea is an existential threat to them.
If they were, it would follow that we would have seen a more aggressive posture from them toward the North when Kim's behavior turns provocative with his rhetoric or missile tests.
I don't completely buy this accepted wisdom that China doesn't have any control over North Korea. They like to play coy, because it is to their benefit in a geopolitical sense.
Is there any reason to think that China doesn't benefit and enjoy watching us waste time, energy and resources worrying about this bizarre regime?
It's almost certain that China is not worried in any way that North Korea is an existential threat to them.
If they were, it would follow that we would have seen a more aggressive posture from them toward the North when Kim's behavior turns provocative with his rhetoric or missile tests.
I don't completely buy this accepted wisdom that China doesn't have any control over North Korea. They like to play coy, because it is to their benefit in a geopolitical sense.
10
It's time to unleash the most mighty weapons in the entire American arsenal, and only Trump would dare use these volatile but overwhelmingl tools: celebrities! Dennis Rodman has shown great potential. Perhaps a battalion of serious, high quality Elvis impersonators parachuting into the Presidential Palace, a la the film "Honeymoon In Vegas". Then there's the most powerful single supeweaponn of them all, while his face is still recognizable - the Governator himself, Arnold.
Hey, it's worth a try. We've got plenty more of these devastating treasures in our quiver. (Speaking of treasures, what about that great National Treasure, Nicholas Cage? Do we dare!)
Hey, it's worth a try. We've got plenty more of these devastating treasures in our quiver. (Speaking of treasures, what about that great National Treasure, Nicholas Cage? Do we dare!)
9
The real question is: Who makes money from a new Korean War? That is the primary consideration of the Trump junta. If there is no money to be gained there will be no war. Trump is an 11th hour pragmatist (Hence his retreat in health care.). If he has nothing to gain (prestige, power, marketing) he will whine, complain, and conduct faux military posturing. China has the cards here. North Korea will stand down if China says so. China needs American markets and America needs China's cheap goods. The two countries share an economically reciprocal relationship. North Korea is a sideshow. And, by the way, what does South Korea have to say about all this? They are a big trading nation, too?
Trump's "America First" credo has been turned on its head in the first 100 days. Everything with Trump is negotiable and for sale. He has no stomach for a stand up fight that's not rigged. The military brass will be the warmongering problem; Trump, not so much. Or, maybe they'll keep forgetting to tell him which direction the boats are heading.
Trump's "America First" credo has been turned on its head in the first 100 days. Everything with Trump is negotiable and for sale. He has no stomach for a stand up fight that's not rigged. The military brass will be the warmongering problem; Trump, not so much. Or, maybe they'll keep forgetting to tell him which direction the boats are heading.
17
This nightmare that is 45 has incalculable destructive energy and my fears of his potential for harm to us all, has been proven in spades daily. I am just holding on for the midterms in hope that I will feel at least some hope based on the end results. Call me whatever you want, "chicken little","drama queen"... but anyone who has not given his potential for harm it's real value is in denial. The weight of it is overwhelming and I just keep crossing my fingers until the mid terms and hoping that he will be impeached sooner rather than later. I wonder when his supporters in the government will finally turn on him. Those who are not just cutting and run that is, Jacob C? I wonder if he knows something we don't? VOTE. It is our best and only way out. I have faith in our system, as bad as it is, so please 45 supporters, come back to reality with the rest of us and save yourselves and everyone else from the potential harm we face.
29
North Korea sees everything around it, with the possible exception of China, as an existential threat. It sees its nuclear arsenal as the only defense against that threat, and there is nothing it fears --- not famine, not the poverty of its citizens, not sanctions, not isolation, not the Chinese --- more than that threat.
This dilemma has always been the Achilles heal of nuclear deterrence, that at some point, some nation with a deranged leader would see mutual destruction as the preferred option. I don't believe Donald Trump fits that mold, but Kim Jong-un certainly does. This means that we have to rely on Trump and his advisers to have a Kennedy-esque ability to understand what is happening and how to respond.
It's when there are no good options left that we turn to our leaders to find a way that doesn't send us over a cliff. This is why the election of Donald Trump was so much more important than whether we needed a border wall, a Muslim ban, a repeal of Obamacare and a president who "tells it like it is."
This dilemma has always been the Achilles heal of nuclear deterrence, that at some point, some nation with a deranged leader would see mutual destruction as the preferred option. I don't believe Donald Trump fits that mold, but Kim Jong-un certainly does. This means that we have to rely on Trump and his advisers to have a Kennedy-esque ability to understand what is happening and how to respond.
It's when there are no good options left that we turn to our leaders to find a way that doesn't send us over a cliff. This is why the election of Donald Trump was so much more important than whether we needed a border wall, a Muslim ban, a repeal of Obamacare and a president who "tells it like it is."
4
"This means that we have to rely on Trump and his advisers to have a Kennedy-esque ability to understand what is happening and how to respond."
North Korea isn't the USSR and Kim isn't Nikita Khruschev.
North Korea isn't the USSR and Kim isn't Nikita Khruschev.
Nicholas, I deplore Trump, have less than zero confidence in him, but what exactly are our long term options here.?
Right now, North Korea can devastate Seoul. But in a few years they will be able to devastate Los Angeles. Can we truly allow that possibility to exist? Are we to trust the Chinese to pressure this rogue, nihilistic regime that allowed millions of its own people to starve to death while pushing full steam ahead on nukes?
If Nixon had knocked out North Korea in 1969 the bloodshed would have been awful, but a fraction of what it will be today. You admit yourself there's little reason to believe any of the more moderate options will work. I don't want us to start a war with North Korea. But doing nothing strongly tilts in their favor.
Right now, North Korea can devastate Seoul. But in a few years they will be able to devastate Los Angeles. Can we truly allow that possibility to exist? Are we to trust the Chinese to pressure this rogue, nihilistic regime that allowed millions of its own people to starve to death while pushing full steam ahead on nukes?
If Nixon had knocked out North Korea in 1969 the bloodshed would have been awful, but a fraction of what it will be today. You admit yourself there's little reason to believe any of the more moderate options will work. I don't want us to start a war with North Korea. But doing nothing strongly tilts in their favor.
9
The carriers going south instead of north is doing something...making the US look ridiculous; how can we possibly take the high moral ground to justify our actions? The "generals," including Mattis were all over the talk shows telling us the opposite of what was really going on, using the word of the week, prudent, to describe their actions. Either they are so incompetent they really thought the ships were going north, in which case they should be fired, or, were blatantly lying, in which case they should be fired. What a circus, there are no adults under the tent.
1
Kim Jong- un reasonably and rationally wants to stay in power by any means necessary. Nukes are the ultimate trump card in that endeavor.
North Korea has the 4th largest military on Earth and with the highest percentage of it's citizens in uniform it is the modern equivalent of Sparta. Mr. Kim at 32/33 years old has more executive leadership experience as the head of a nation state than the Trump White House and cabinet combined.
Trump's immature innate ignorant intemperate incompetence is compounded by his stupidity aka knowing things that are not true and his pathological lying.
If Trump were curious he could cure his ignorance. If Trump were humble he could fix his mistakes. If Trump were humane he could do the right thing for humanity. But stupidity is a terminal condition combined with a 70 year old juvenile delinquent human nature and nurture.
Donald Trump's occupation of the Oval Office in our White House is the nightmare of these and all American times.
North Korea has the 4th largest military on Earth and with the highest percentage of it's citizens in uniform it is the modern equivalent of Sparta. Mr. Kim at 32/33 years old has more executive leadership experience as the head of a nation state than the Trump White House and cabinet combined.
Trump's immature innate ignorant intemperate incompetence is compounded by his stupidity aka knowing things that are not true and his pathological lying.
If Trump were curious he could cure his ignorance. If Trump were humble he could fix his mistakes. If Trump were humane he could do the right thing for humanity. But stupidity is a terminal condition combined with a 70 year old juvenile delinquent human nature and nurture.
Donald Trump's occupation of the Oval Office in our White House is the nightmare of these and all American times.
63
A good friend of mine lived in South Korea for many years, and she said that although there was always a palpable sense of insecurity there regarding the actions of the North and an appreciation of American presence and protection from aggression, two primary values are family unity and saving face. South Korea is our ally and friend and our duty there continues. The South Koreans always hope for reunion and restored family connections since they so greatly value family, country, and honoring ancestors. A code of conduct dictates that one never disgrace the family honor or publicly lose face and bring humiliation to the family. If North Korea, however twisted, shares these values, would it not be foolish to antagonize them further and would it not be wise to confer with the South Koreans on ways to restore their family connections and stop publicly mocking Kim? Can we not instead assuage the ego of the North Korean "father of the country" and work with China to defuse the tension? We never understood the mindset of the Middle East, but rushed in foolishly, mocking Saddam and initiating a conflagration that consumes the whole region and is costing us dearly. Let us not make a similar mistake in North Korea.
8
Kristoff gilds the nighmare, skirting saying how great the South Korean carnage would be and how severe the World Depression that would result from the destruction of its economy. Not to speak of such risks of escalation as a nuclear blow to Tokyo or an apocalyptic Chinese reaction.
None of which should be taken to mean that we should err toward minimal action, it self part of the universe of risky choices with which the PRK situation confronts us.
None of which should be taken to mean that we should err toward minimal action, it self part of the universe of risky choices with which the PRK situation confronts us.
1
This flawed scenario is way too optimistic.
The only obvious reason that Kim John-un did not do a nuclear test recently is because he cannot afford using his limited inventory. Now that the disgusting head of North Korea found his equal in psychotic narcissism, Kim John-un may be saving his nukes to use in an actual war, rather than testing them.
If Trump crosses the border of sovereign North Korea like he did in Syria testing the waters. the most predictable outcome is war. Even an evil defender is expected to defend themselves at all costs. Trump while extremely incompetent at building anything successful, including casinos, is pretty good at lying, cheating, defrauding, and destroying. With six bankruptcies this incompetent should not be allowed to destroy the US economy and the US standing in the world.
Who wants Chinese world hegemony, which is the most likely outcome of such a catastrophe?
The only obvious reason that Kim John-un did not do a nuclear test recently is because he cannot afford using his limited inventory. Now that the disgusting head of North Korea found his equal in psychotic narcissism, Kim John-un may be saving his nukes to use in an actual war, rather than testing them.
If Trump crosses the border of sovereign North Korea like he did in Syria testing the waters. the most predictable outcome is war. Even an evil defender is expected to defend themselves at all costs. Trump while extremely incompetent at building anything successful, including casinos, is pretty good at lying, cheating, defrauding, and destroying. With six bankruptcies this incompetent should not be allowed to destroy the US economy and the US standing in the world.
Who wants Chinese world hegemony, which is the most likely outcome of such a catastrophe?
5
"Who wants Chinese world hegemony, which is the most likely outcome of such a catastrophe?"
Watching the way China has failed to control or even influence, many of North Korea's actions over the years, one has to wonder how they could control the rest of the world, even if they wanted to.
Watching the way China has failed to control or even influence, many of North Korea's actions over the years, one has to wonder how they could control the rest of the world, even if they wanted to.
If we break Humptee Dumptee no one will trust us ever again. China is one possibility who will inherit the position of top dog if we falter under this Incompetent in Chief.
The Chinese have been using soft power spearheading economic development and building economic ties all over the world from Africa to Latin America, in Asia, and even in Europe, kind of like we used to.
Look us now instead of bridges we have an idiot in the White House talking about building walls. Building walls and slashing foreign aid (read ties to the world).
If US bellicosity subsidies North Korea will disappear under its own weight. Idiot Bush scuttled Clinton's plan to prevent nukes from the Korean peninsula is the only reason N. Korea it still a problem.
North Korea does not need control. They are a threat to no one except to North Koreans.
The Chinese have been using soft power spearheading economic development and building economic ties all over the world from Africa to Latin America, in Asia, and even in Europe, kind of like we used to.
Look us now instead of bridges we have an idiot in the White House talking about building walls. Building walls and slashing foreign aid (read ties to the world).
If US bellicosity subsidies North Korea will disappear under its own weight. Idiot Bush scuttled Clinton's plan to prevent nukes from the Korean peninsula is the only reason N. Korea it still a problem.
North Korea does not need control. They are a threat to no one except to North Koreans.
2
All options are lousy. But there is no rational reason to believe that North Korea would ever "verifiably freeze its nuclear and missle programs" in exchange for sanctions relief. It has repeatedly not negotiated in good faith and there is no reason to believe it will do so in the future
The regime wants to survive, clear and simple, at whatever cost. I question the degree of pressure China will really put on North Korea--too much (assuming China has total leverage) and they have a failed state on their border. Makes our relationship with Mexico, and immigration, look minor. So I don't suspect there will be enough economic pressure to change the equation.
The least bad alternative is what has been going on for decades--what one perceptive National Review writer termed a "Terrible stability." Unlike other potentially bad actors, North Korea has shown zip interest in making trouble outside its borders, save the sale of nuclear materials to bad guys. So we need to enforce this "terrible stability" and be patient, and have a plan (along with China) to get possession of the nukes when the place ultimately rots from within. The Soviet Union had nukes for decades, and ultimately collapsed. This tin horn version will do likewise.
The regime wants to survive, clear and simple, at whatever cost. I question the degree of pressure China will really put on North Korea--too much (assuming China has total leverage) and they have a failed state on their border. Makes our relationship with Mexico, and immigration, look minor. So I don't suspect there will be enough economic pressure to change the equation.
The least bad alternative is what has been going on for decades--what one perceptive National Review writer termed a "Terrible stability." Unlike other potentially bad actors, North Korea has shown zip interest in making trouble outside its borders, save the sale of nuclear materials to bad guys. So we need to enforce this "terrible stability" and be patient, and have a plan (along with China) to get possession of the nukes when the place ultimately rots from within. The Soviet Union had nukes for decades, and ultimately collapsed. This tin horn version will do likewise.
8
trump and co's words and gestures threaten to turn the US into a rogue nation, determined to simultaneously turn several real but contained problems around the world into major crises. At the same time we have the so-called president and CIC least equipped to deal with them.
If the farce involving the US armada sailing towards N. Korea were not so serious, it would remind me of the exercise in futility some of us sang about when we were young children:
Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down.
If the farce involving the US armada sailing towards N. Korea were not so serious, it would remind me of the exercise in futility some of us sang about when we were young children:
Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down.
3
Nicholas Kristof is apparently willing to consider all alternatives, other than calling for the U.S. to forswear use of nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states, which it refuses to do.
Such a declaration would be unlikely to accomplish much with a brutal rogue state like North Korea. But the North Korean case does prove that a deterrent absolutely does moderate U.S. behavior. Nixon, to cite Kristof's own example, was more than happy to bomb Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos into the stone age. But with North Korea, he hesitated.
That lesson hasn't been lost on the rest of the world, though Americans seem to have a hard time absorbing it.
Such a declaration would be unlikely to accomplish much with a brutal rogue state like North Korea. But the North Korean case does prove that a deterrent absolutely does moderate U.S. behavior. Nixon, to cite Kristof's own example, was more than happy to bomb Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos into the stone age. But with North Korea, he hesitated.
That lesson hasn't been lost on the rest of the world, though Americans seem to have a hard time absorbing it.
3
Makes you wish Nixon had bombed Korea back then, doesn't it? Then we wouldn't be in this pickle, with two similar personalities having their fingers on the nuclear button.
Trump is awful but so are the choices.
So there is chance now of triggering a horrendous war with a million casualties in Korea but so far any negotiation just buys time for them to cheat and develop long range nuclear strike capability and risk triggering a war with ten million casualties in California, Japan and China as well as Korea
Maybe continuing to pay off a tyrant while he suppresses a nation is the smart move. Maybe he won't sell his technology to other terrorists. Maybe a better regime will arise.
I don't know the best solution but it strikes me even the negotiated route requires starting off as tough as they are.
So there is chance now of triggering a horrendous war with a million casualties in Korea but so far any negotiation just buys time for them to cheat and develop long range nuclear strike capability and risk triggering a war with ten million casualties in California, Japan and China as well as Korea
Maybe continuing to pay off a tyrant while he suppresses a nation is the smart move. Maybe he won't sell his technology to other terrorists. Maybe a better regime will arise.
I don't know the best solution but it strikes me even the negotiated route requires starting off as tough as they are.
1
Given the presence of the fickle minded heads of states at both the sides-North Korea and the US, and their obsession with power projection, the possibility of an accidental war in the Korean peninsula couldn't be entirely ruled out, which if occurs would be catastrophic for the world.
4
I see all of your points. But I think that even if Obama or Clinton were in office, they would have faced the same situation. It is a dilemma. Do nothing and North Korea develops weapons unchecked. Do something - probably anything including more sanctions - would likely trigger a military response. What, if anything, would another president do differently? I did not vote for Trump, do not like him, and think this situation will literally explode on him. Yet, our options are limited - as you point out. I think any president would face the same limited, bad choices. The problem is the problem here. The response of pushing China is our only, long shot hope. But it would be so regardless of the president.
4
There is one solution but its radical, cruel and horrific. The North Korean leader loves to mobilize his generals and put on large parades in Pyongyang. The spectacles bring together thousands of troops and also, many innocents too. But, and I know this is outrageous, when those spectacles take place that is the ultimate opportunity to strike North Korea and wipe out Kim and his generals as well as a large piece of the command and infrastructure that supports (and terrorizes) North Korea as well as the South and Japan. Attacking North Korea's missiles as they sit on launch pads is ridiculous. Destroying the facilities that build them is worthless too. What must be destroyed is the people who are commanding and controlling the armed forces of the North. And their largest bases, supply depots, and manufacturing sites should also be destroyed.
What would need to happen would necessitate a massive United States strike at the North that would be devastating and relentless. If necessary even tactical nuclear weapons should be used.
Of course that's not going to happen. Its too outrageous.
But wait. What is North Korea threatening ? Isn't the North threatening to wipe out South Korea, Japan and strike the U.S. mainland? That too is radical, cruel and horrific. Maybe China and the U.S. will figure it out and work together to bring North Korea to a disarmament and peace conference. Can Mr. Trump do that? Can he? Would he?
What would need to happen would necessitate a massive United States strike at the North that would be devastating and relentless. If necessary even tactical nuclear weapons should be used.
Of course that's not going to happen. Its too outrageous.
But wait. What is North Korea threatening ? Isn't the North threatening to wipe out South Korea, Japan and strike the U.S. mainland? That too is radical, cruel and horrific. Maybe China and the U.S. will figure it out and work together to bring North Korea to a disarmament and peace conference. Can Mr. Trump do that? Can he? Would he?
4
Surely you can imagine that Kim has "doubles." I doubt we will catch him with his pants down. This is a Bond-movie fantasy, as attractive as it might seem in theory.
This all pivots around China. Our world has changed since 1953, 1969 and even 2006. China will continue to enable N.Korea as long as U.S. military is in S. Korea and surrounds them with bases in East Asia. We should recognize Chinese pre-eminence in Asia and negotiate security arrangements for Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan while we still have some negotiating power. This may be the perfect time, for we are at the brink and their may be no turning back.
7
"In the 1990s, North Korea continued with its nuclear program even as a famine claimed the lives of perhaps 10 percent of the population"
We let 10% of its population die under our sanctions. Over 2 million people died as we applied those sanctions and watched them die.
Now Kristof tells us a war could kill half that number, again almost all Koreans. That is hardly unthinkable for the who did those sanctions.
At the same time, the US applied similar sanctions to Iraq that we said killed 500,000 children, and our Sec of State commented only that it was "worth it."
Kristof is horrified at the prospect of more, but I am horrified at what we have done for so long.
I have to agree with him, it is not working. "[T]he present approach of leaning on China to pressure North Korea will likely fail." Well, yeah, it did not work for a long time now, and we kept on when it killed a lot more than might die in a war now.
There is a third group of options that Kristof does not mention, not war, and not pressuring China to do as we demand on yet more sanctions. It is long past time to try something new.
Stop all the killing. It is not just possible we might kill, war would be only half as deadly as what we've already done.
China has proposed a series of diplomatic approaches that the US refuses. They've been flexible, and we have been adamant in refusing everything.
It is time, long past time, for us to accept the Chinese ideas, instead of demanding China accept our ideas.
We let 10% of its population die under our sanctions. Over 2 million people died as we applied those sanctions and watched them die.
Now Kristof tells us a war could kill half that number, again almost all Koreans. That is hardly unthinkable for the who did those sanctions.
At the same time, the US applied similar sanctions to Iraq that we said killed 500,000 children, and our Sec of State commented only that it was "worth it."
Kristof is horrified at the prospect of more, but I am horrified at what we have done for so long.
I have to agree with him, it is not working. "[T]he present approach of leaning on China to pressure North Korea will likely fail." Well, yeah, it did not work for a long time now, and we kept on when it killed a lot more than might die in a war now.
There is a third group of options that Kristof does not mention, not war, and not pressuring China to do as we demand on yet more sanctions. It is long past time to try something new.
Stop all the killing. It is not just possible we might kill, war would be only half as deadly as what we've already done.
China has proposed a series of diplomatic approaches that the US refuses. They've been flexible, and we have been adamant in refusing everything.
It is time, long past time, for us to accept the Chinese ideas, instead of demanding China accept our ideas.
65
Mr. Thomason, what are some of these good Chinese ideas that you claim the Obama administration refused to act on?
@ Mark Thomason - Mark I find in column after column, article after article, and comment after comment - not today as concerns comments - there is not the slightest recognition of the fact that the US by its actions has been responsible for deaths on the same or larger scale. All columnists with international experience must know these things so it is inexcusable that they do not mention them That is why I write in vain to Public Editor to ask why the Times cannot provide fact boxes as in my Swedish newspaper.
The fact box would show civilian deaths in various relevant wars.
Larry L.
The fact box would show civilian deaths in various relevant wars.
Larry L.
1
The Korean "Police Action" started in the 1950s due to a bungled military overreach by General MacCarthur. It took three years and many lives before the conflict ended with, essentially, a return to the status quo. The recent miscommunication about the location of Trump's armada gives one pause. Are we on the verge of stumbling into another war on the Korean Peninsula that no one really wants. On the campaign trail, Trump proposed sitting down with Kim Jong-un over a burger. Aside from the incredible photo op that meeting would produce, the idea is probably the best one Trump has had. Kim wants respect. Trump wants to be seen as the world's ultimate deal maker. It would be a win in both men's minds. In defusing the world's biggest nuclear threat, they might also come away as pals. The two men are terrifyingly (laughably, too, if it weren't so scary) alike. Besides, Trump so far hasn't met a dictator he doesn't warm up to.
6
In the mind of the Twitter King a war with North Korea is a path to redemption and perhaps unassailable power. In his dark mirror he will be a champion and savior; no one would dare remove him during such a war. His approval ratings will soar.
9
Republicans hated the Iran nuclear deal, but the Trump administration has just had to admit it appears to be working. It was never the long-term solution and now it would be up to Trump's people to work on what might happen next.
It's even worse when it comes to North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. The reason for that may be as much defensive as offensive, but it's scary to think that a person who doesn't really care much about implications might use them. It's even scarier to think that North Korea might sell some of their nuclear arsenal to terrorists. And, it's scariest of all that we have no reason to have confidence in the knowledge and judgment of our own president.
It's even worse when it comes to North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. The reason for that may be as much defensive as offensive, but it's scary to think that a person who doesn't really care much about implications might use them. It's even scarier to think that North Korea might sell some of their nuclear arsenal to terrorists. And, it's scariest of all that we have no reason to have confidence in the knowledge and judgment of our own president.
8
I do sympathize with Trump in that he is facing what is arguably his greatest conundrum and one that has plagued his predecessors. And this is one that despite the history here still requires a long view and calculated restraint. Are you listening Mr. Trump? Perhaps the best foreign policy strategy this administration can enact will be to treat North Korea like a chronic disease and proceed with an array of interventions: multilateral negotiations involving China, Japan, United States, South and North Korea; continued and tightened sanctions; elimination of imports which include critical missile components; heightened international cyber disruptions. A military intervention would result in cataclysmic consequences for adjacent countries and this option should, if enacted, be designed with full awareness of what the immediate and long term goals are. I fear, and I do believe I have a lot of company in this regard, that the man in the White House is so ignorant, impulsive and driven by insatiable narcissism that Kim Jong-urn's taunts and belittling comments could provoke a heavy-fisted blow which will have only untold disastrous global consequences.
5
Right. Asking Trump to act as a restrained and adult Commander in Chief is probably far out of his capabilities. (140 characters seems to be the limit of his coherence and attention span.) We have yet to hear ANY detailed foreign policy except belligerence and bluster.
I have always believed that there could be a deal with China that once the Kim regime was gone and Korea was unified, the United State would pull all of our forces out of east Asia. But the more I think about it, I believe China would fear having a functioning democracy on its border more than it fears U.S. forces in East Asia.
On another note, when does the unthinkable become the best option?
On another note, when does the unthinkable become the best option?
8
China would never allow unification for the reason you state.
That's why they let Kim run amok and then pretend that they have no influence. It's to keep us occupied and distracted, hoping we'll make a mistake.
The Chinese premier played Trump at Mar-a-Lago for a fool.
Trump all of a sudden now "understands" why China can't influence the North. I guess Mr. Tough guy will accept anything at face value as long as he's stuffing his face with chocolate cake at the time.
China could shut that place down in a heartbeat. The fact is, North Korea provides invaluable geopolitical cover for them. The North is more under the thumb of China than any cold war Soviet Union satellite nation ever was.
That's why they let Kim run amok and then pretend that they have no influence. It's to keep us occupied and distracted, hoping we'll make a mistake.
The Chinese premier played Trump at Mar-a-Lago for a fool.
Trump all of a sudden now "understands" why China can't influence the North. I guess Mr. Tough guy will accept anything at face value as long as he's stuffing his face with chocolate cake at the time.
China could shut that place down in a heartbeat. The fact is, North Korea provides invaluable geopolitical cover for them. The North is more under the thumb of China than any cold war Soviet Union satellite nation ever was.
George F. Kennan’s policy of “containment,” the basic U.S. strategy for the cold war (1947–1989) with the Soviet Union, offers an excellent point of departure for the formulation of our defense policy and strategy vis a vis North Korea. In an anonymous contribution to the journal Foreign Affairs in 1947, the so-called “X-Article”, he wrote “The main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” To that end, Kennan called for countering Soviet aggression against the Western world through the “adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy.” Such a policy, he expected, would “promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power.”
In parallel to adopting and implementing a policy of containment in addressing North Korea’s military threat, the U.S. should deploy a credible defense against its potential use of nuclear weapons, whether deliverable by guided missiles or other means. Hopefully, Kim Jong-un or his successor will eventually recognize the futility of continued belligerence and military posturing, and start collaborating with Washington toward de-escalation and ultimate cooperation.
In parallel to adopting and implementing a policy of containment in addressing North Korea’s military threat, the U.S. should deploy a credible defense against its potential use of nuclear weapons, whether deliverable by guided missiles or other means. Hopefully, Kim Jong-un or his successor will eventually recognize the futility of continued belligerence and military posturing, and start collaborating with Washington toward de-escalation and ultimate cooperation.
2
Libya gave up its nuclear and chemical weapons programs beginning in 2003 follow various promises from America and other NATO powers of improved relations. This led to an attack by NATO powers on a disarmed Libya a few years later culminating in the sexual assault and murder of its long-time leader and a plunge into chaos. Can anyone think that the North Koreans didn't notice this? Only an idiotic leader would disarm North Korea in the aftermath of this history. Our chickens have come home to roost.
6
And also I will add the following. In 1990 Saddam Hussein of Irak invaded Kuwait, in 2014 Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea. Saddam Hussein had to face an international coalition lead by the USA and was expelled from Kuwait. Vladimir Putin had to deal with only economic sanctions and he is still in Crimea. The difference Russia has a nuclear arsenal. As Che Beauchard wrote so well: "Can anyone think that the North Koreans didn't notice this?"
“Defense Secretary Jim Mattis knows all this, and he and other grown-ups in the Trump administration would resist any call for a pre-emptive strike.” Sorry Mr. Kristof, these fond hopes have been dashed by the craven display of duplicity by Tump’s generals McMaster and Mattis, when they abetted his delusional story about the dispatch of the Vinson armada to North Korean waters.
There is no one to save us when Trump realizes he is clueless about North Korea or any other foreign country, and he reaches for the nuclear button.
There is no one to save us when Trump realizes he is clueless about North Korea or any other foreign country, and he reaches for the nuclear button.
11
yet the adults let Trump pull the trigger in Syria because Turkish "experts" provide sarin was used. What is Russians were killed? What would Putin have to do?
Trump was simply testing how far towards war he can push. Trump is trapped with low approval and it will get worse. The only hope for Trump is a reset like 9-11 was for Bush.
Trump was simply testing how far towards war he can push. Trump is trapped with low approval and it will get worse. The only hope for Trump is a reset like 9-11 was for Bush.
A plausible scenario is for the United States to threaten china that he must default on its' massive debt to China : unless it deals with North Korea! Money talks!
2
Brilliant idea, Dr. Robert. And I shall bring unbearable pressure on the Bank of America by defaulting on my massive loan from Fargo.
What could possibly go wrong? How could it not work?
What could possibly go wrong? How could it not work?
The only way to stop them is complete isolation and China is not willing to cut them off. There are no good solutions.
1
I hope a combination of diplomacy and black arts is used. Bribing top N. Korean officials to soften their opinions and helping N. Korea to join the dark side (i.e. Capitalism) as did their Chinese neighbours, would be good for global peace.
I agree with the commenters who say China is the key. What I don't understand is why China is risking North Korea spooking Japan into going nuclear. Japan could have nuclear weapons overnight complete with delivery systems. By not restraining its unhinged and aggressive client, China is bringing that day closer.
2
Looking to make new friends .
Anyone with a bug out shelter with free space can reach me at 1 - 345 - HELP!!
I will pay top dollar , help with the dishes and bring my own food .
Anyone with a bug out shelter with free space can reach me at 1 - 345 - HELP!!
I will pay top dollar , help with the dishes and bring my own food .
3
On the other hand, the time may at hand where China may be in a position to accept the new, more progressive face of South Korea and thus willing to cooperate in both allowing the US to set up an anti missile system in the south or to orchestrate a palace coup in the north.
Interesting. Sounds a lot like the Iran deal. For Trump the problem is he doesn't like the win-win scenario. Only the I win, you lose one. It must be eating him inside not to be able to throw the first punch. Maybe he'd like to sit down with his predecessors now. Who knew?
1
Well, given Trump's unpredictability and irresponsible behavior, it may come to the 'generals' to beat some sense into a closed-minded arrogant and highly ignorant clown...and oppose to conform, if a foolish and outlandish order is given.
What should be of concern is the " Waco Syndrome". The egregious decision by the ATF, to knock down David Koresh's Waco compound with hybrid tank-bulldozer vehicles, validated his paranoid Armageddon final days scenario, and led to the unnecessary, subsequent slaughter. Kim Jong un is paranoid. He has brutally executed potential threats, even family members. He hasn't left North Korea since he seized power. His American attack-invasion scenario fuels his dictatorship. Any precipitous action, perceived military threat or loose, inflammatory rhetoric,(a Trump specialty) could trigger Kim Jong un's paranoid attack scenario", and unleash an absolute military and humanitarian catastrophe.
5
North Korea learned a clear lesson when Bush invaded Iraq: weapons of mass destruction will lead to an invasion... unless you have a nuclear weapon and the ability to destroy Seoul. In that case, you can do whatever you want.
1
Where was Mr. Kristof when the Obama regime stumbled all over itself and world order collapsed? Oh, he was a like-minded politician and therefore received a pass, sorry. Fortunately, we have seasoned professionals in charge of our defense and not liberal elites in the White House second-guessing every action our military leaders suggest. Clearly we are where we are in no small part as a result of 8 years of incompetence. In fairness, when you elect someone with "0" experience and expect him or her to run the largest corporation in the world...well you get what you should have expected.
The most recent "world order collapse" dates back to the Iraq invasion, which unleashed the instability that now affects of the whole region.
3
Could we just use a template: " Trump Nightmare ". Fill in the blank, Daily. Saves time. Seriously.
4
Back in 1937, Stalin in his paranoi purged his military and executed some 80% of the Red Army's officers from the rank of Colnel and up. This was part, albeit not all, of the reason behind Hitler's early successes against Russia in late June, 1941. We could borrow a page from this playbook, and sew some seeds of mistrust between Mr. Kim and his officers. An ironclad guarantee of the North's sovereignty in exchange for getting rid of Kim might cause enough discord so as to eliminate him or his senior commanders. It's only a partial solution, and perhpas a bit insane itself. However, we seem to be dealing with a regime run by a psychopath, for whom a suicide battle would be preferable to a rich and peaceful exile. One thing is certain: Kim will never give up his nukes, and will one day lob one over to Tokyo and/or Los Angeles. As every appeasement-based strategy has failed, something proactive must be done to prevent that capability. The status quo is like putting a loaded gun in the hands of a six year old and hoping for the best.
Mr. Kristof, your snarky comments , insults and innuendos about the president of the United States can lead readers to doubt our leader in perilous times with the madman leader of N. Korea. Activists in N. Korea have tried for years but they are a minrity among a mesmerized population that is remiiscent of Koresh and the Rev. Jim Jones. Would you prefer sir to wait until the "Dear leader" strikes first? Would you have insisted that JFK appease the Soviet leader during the Cuban missile crisis?
This isn't 1962 and Trump sure isn't JFK.
He's not blundering us into a war, Nick. He's actively courting war. He can't wait to be the first President since Truman to show how big a "man" he is and drop nuclear weapons.
435
Amen.
And since no Trump family member has ever been foolish enough to volunteer to wear the military uniform of any American armed force none of Trump's very tiny bodily parts will ever be in harms way.
And since no Trump family member has ever been foolish enough to volunteer to wear the military uniform of any American armed force none of Trump's very tiny bodily parts will ever be in harms way.
2
Trump is not running this show. He will rely almost entirely on what his military and most senior civilian advisors tell him, as well as input from scholars and experts of both political parties. There is not much more "debate" about what to do with NK. Administrations of both stripes have been dealing with this problem since the Pueblo Incident of 1968. The issues are very well known and understood, as well as the reality that there are simply no good options. In the final analysis, a decision will be made to choose the lesser of two evils: (i) destroy the NK regime by military force; or (ii) live with a nuclear-armed NK and nuclear blackmail in perpetuity, as well as the eventual abandonment of SK to defend itself. Any kind of agreement or "deal" which theoretically might be reached does nothing more than continue to kick the can down the road.
1
Trump seems to be fascinated by things that go boom in a big way.
Maybe that's why the "mother of all (non-nuclear) bombs" was dropped.
Maybe that's why the "mother of all (non-nuclear) bombs" was dropped.
The President may very well blunder into a shooting war, but the problem is, as Mr. Kristof readily admits, diplomacy with this regime is a dead end. The Kim dynasty has rationally concluded that as long as they do not do something stupid, they benefit bigly from having nukes, just like the other members of the nuclear club. (Ukraine do doubt wonders if it had kept a few of the 5000 nukes it inherited when the USSR collapsed it might still have the Crimea.) North Korea is not giving up its nukes, so the question is, can their foreign policy be normalized? Most certainly, not until their domestic policy is normalized. The only way a dynasty hangs onto power is to keep its populace in fear and believing better the devil that they know. Thus, its foreign policy serves its domestic policy ends. So what's a Trump to do? We don't need to "show the fleet" as TR did; in 2017, the world knows we have it and it is potent. If Trump were an adult that did not have to constantly prove his manhood, he would publicly ignore them while ramping up the cyber-warfare operation, gaming a strategy to take out those artillery batteries that threaten Seoul and Japan in the event we have to "go in", and working on that anti-ICBM Pacific shield. In other words, just follow Barack Obama's long-game playbook.
9
I agree with much of what you say, but point out a few matters:
1. The AMD "Pacific Shield" is a myth: it has a demonstrated success rate of between 30% and under 50%, and that is under optimal conditions. For now, the risk of long-range attack is very, very small, but this will certainly increase in a few years.
2. There is no known way to quickly neutralize the thousands of artillery pieces and chemical weapons rockets aimed at Seoul, short of a full scale invasion. This is the same problem Israel faces with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
3. Barack Obama's long-game playbook does not work beyond a certain point. Once NK has the demonstrated ability to nuke mainland US cities, it will become impossible to counter the extortion and coercion threat from NK. At the moment, the risk is losing half of SK and perhaps US bases in Japan. In the future the risk will be losing US cities. The US will no longer be willing to defend SK under that severity of threat. Bear in mind that the US is still "at war" with NK. In place is only a temporary armistice.
1. The AMD "Pacific Shield" is a myth: it has a demonstrated success rate of between 30% and under 50%, and that is under optimal conditions. For now, the risk of long-range attack is very, very small, but this will certainly increase in a few years.
2. There is no known way to quickly neutralize the thousands of artillery pieces and chemical weapons rockets aimed at Seoul, short of a full scale invasion. This is the same problem Israel faces with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
3. Barack Obama's long-game playbook does not work beyond a certain point. Once NK has the demonstrated ability to nuke mainland US cities, it will become impossible to counter the extortion and coercion threat from NK. At the moment, the risk is losing half of SK and perhaps US bases in Japan. In the future the risk will be losing US cities. The US will no longer be willing to defend SK under that severity of threat. Bear in mind that the US is still "at war" with NK. In place is only a temporary armistice.
What about a try at communication andnon violent reactions? It sounds naive even to write it. But clearly, we are headed towards a confrontation and perhaps it will take a real disaster to learn the lesson. Or not. In the aftermath of a nuclear attack, will many who are seeing crops shrivel and widespread disease still be looking to blame someone else. Each one of us should spend part of each day calling, helping one another, attending marches, looking into their own reactions and pray.
2
An intractable problem in search of an elusive solution. That's North Korea in a nutshell. Throw in a "joker" like Trump and the possibilities for catastrophe multiply. Trump is a gambler, and not a very good one. He's playing poker with our lives.
40
Perhaps the most important thing this article doesn't mention is what may be the main driver in Trump's thinking. He may know he's in deep trouble over the Russian business. He may be seeing only one option that can save him from impeachment, that being a "war president".
So the question becomes, how much risk is Trump willing to assume in order to save himself? Would he risk Seoul? If so, only mass resignations among his military advisors would save us from the kind of blunder we're talking about here. Watching these guys throw 59 missiles at an air base in Syria and dropping the "mother of all bombs" in Afghanistan doesn't leave me with a lot of comforting thoughts.
It appears to me that Trump may be leading us down the path of our worst nightmares about him.
So the question becomes, how much risk is Trump willing to assume in order to save himself? Would he risk Seoul? If so, only mass resignations among his military advisors would save us from the kind of blunder we're talking about here. Watching these guys throw 59 missiles at an air base in Syria and dropping the "mother of all bombs" in Afghanistan doesn't leave me with a lot of comforting thoughts.
It appears to me that Trump may be leading us down the path of our worst nightmares about him.
170
There is no good solution to North Korea. Each new member of the Kim dynasty seems to be more detached from reality than the last. North Korea could benefit greatly from opening up to the world, but that could mean the end of the dynasty and none of the "Supreme Leaders" have been willing to risk it. It is sad because the people of North Korea have paid such a horrible price, but to make Japan or South Korea pay the price of another war is almost impossible to justify. I wonder if the solution isn't South Korea. If the US gets out of the way and lets North and South work out something? We seem to forget South Korea in all of this, they have the most to gain and to lose in this ordeal. Maybe we should back off and let Koreans to each other without our interference?
5
South Korea and Japan always were most at risk from a madman with a starving population and without the means to do anything about that short of blackmailing the world, increasingly with nuclear capabilities. Kim Jong-un’s own credibility hinges on his ability to demonstrate the capacity to cause indescribable harm to millions of innocents. The distance between the harm that one madman can inflict on a significant part of the world by miscalculation and anything Trump might do is immense. Because of that instability, with potentially hideous consequences, something MUST be done.
We seem to be marching toward some kind of showdown. But let’s not be absurd by calling it “war”. There can’t be any serious question about the outcome of any attempt by North Korea to inflict harm on South Korea or Japan (or even us). If they fail, which is a good bet, the consequences to Kim and his military would be severe, perhaps crippling – leaving him with NO chips on his side of the table as he seeks to coerce food and fuel from a threatened world.
If they succeed at inflicting that harm, China or no, there won’t be much left of the North Korean military or their assets other than volcanic glass. Kim and ALL his hangers-on would be dead, leaving the U.S., China and South Korea to negotiate how China’s “buffer” needs are satisfied while (finally) reuniting a Korean people. Possibly by promising complete U.S. military withdrawal from the Korean peninsula in return for China’s cooperation.
We seem to be marching toward some kind of showdown. But let’s not be absurd by calling it “war”. There can’t be any serious question about the outcome of any attempt by North Korea to inflict harm on South Korea or Japan (or even us). If they fail, which is a good bet, the consequences to Kim and his military would be severe, perhaps crippling – leaving him with NO chips on his side of the table as he seeks to coerce food and fuel from a threatened world.
If they succeed at inflicting that harm, China or no, there won’t be much left of the North Korean military or their assets other than volcanic glass. Kim and ALL his hangers-on would be dead, leaving the U.S., China and South Korea to negotiate how China’s “buffer” needs are satisfied while (finally) reuniting a Korean people. Possibly by promising complete U.S. military withdrawal from the Korean peninsula in return for China’s cooperation.
1
It’s not Trump who is forcing a showdown: it’s Kim, with nuclear pretensions unimaginably beyond the resources of a bankrupt nation and a starving people. But Trump is the wrong guy to go “all-in” on with a bluff. And, given the stakes in the event of a miscalculation by a madman, Trump has no choice but to respond.
1
Just like the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, right Richard? All smashing military successes.
3
I am not as pessimistic as Trump because he is fundamentally a coward who is very unsure of himself. He depends on other people for affirmation. Rather than being strong he actually backs down from true confrontations. If everyone around him tells him not to bomb North Korea he will not do it. That said the problem of North Korea may be unsolvable. There will very likely eventually be a catastrophic war. The only hope is gradual pressure from China that destroys the North Korean economy along with an information campaign and a promise that anyone who overthrows Kim will be rewarded by the International community. Kim will react to a perceived internal threat by killing people around him. As with Stalin eventually some of them may decide they need to kill him to survive.
15
The sad thing is that the best option is probably to wait him out and live with the anxiety and uncertainty for years, possibly decades.
1
"The only option left, I think, is to apply relentless pressure together with China, while pushing for a deal in which North Korea would verifiably freeze its nuclear and missile programs without actually giving up its nukes, in exchange for sanctions relief."
Relentless pressure together with China? What pressure will China provide - warning that the US and N. Korea are headed towards war?
China will only act against N. Korea when it sees all other options are not working, including their recent pronouncements on war between the US and N. Korea.
We can continue the Obama doctrine and do nothing that will be effective (including "diplomatic pressure" and "working together with China") or force a change. Rant against Trump all you like, that won't change these facts, and they're not alternative facts. Time's just about up.
Relentless pressure together with China? What pressure will China provide - warning that the US and N. Korea are headed towards war?
China will only act against N. Korea when it sees all other options are not working, including their recent pronouncements on war between the US and N. Korea.
We can continue the Obama doctrine and do nothing that will be effective (including "diplomatic pressure" and "working together with China") or force a change. Rant against Trump all you like, that won't change these facts, and they're not alternative facts. Time's just about up.
1
There is always another option. We could offer to work with China to build large and well provisioned camps ten miles north of the DPRK border--the Seabees are particularly good at this--and, once supplied and built, the Chinese could turn down the flow of oil and food to the Hermit Kingdom and welcome the starving displaced Koreans to a temporary safe haven until the Kim dynasty falls.
Then, we turn their swords to plowshares and help with massive investments in the country to build the North as a viable country on the world stage. Much cheaper in the long run than the devastation of Seoul and its 25 million.
Then, we turn their swords to plowshares and help with massive investments in the country to build the North as a viable country on the world stage. Much cheaper in the long run than the devastation of Seoul and its 25 million.
5
For someone with interests in a lot of commercial property all over the place, and an all-absorbing focus on making money on his 'brand', Donald spends a remarkable amount of time antagonizing both individuals and unstable powers.
Kim Jong-un thinks nothing of torturing and killing his own relatives, even outside North Korea. How long will it be before he realizes that making tourists feel unsafe in Trump-operated hotels is a better strategy to make Donald's life a living nightmare than parading around a bunch of big missiles?
Eventually, the crazies will start hitting Donald where it really hurts.
Kim Jong-un thinks nothing of torturing and killing his own relatives, even outside North Korea. How long will it be before he realizes that making tourists feel unsafe in Trump-operated hotels is a better strategy to make Donald's life a living nightmare than parading around a bunch of big missiles?
Eventually, the crazies will start hitting Donald where it really hurts.
8
"Eventually, the crazies will start hitting Donald where it really hurts."
Oh, actually they have already been hitting him since January 20.
Progressives, liberals, whatever you call them have absolutely NO strategy except bashing Trump and bashing the "deplorables" who voted for him.
Maybe they could consider acting like grownups?
Trump is a very defective president but he IS president and the thing to ask, for those who did NOT vote for him is, "What is the BEST thing that WE can do?" Marching, and saying"NOT my president" is not exactly the most mature strategy.
Oh, actually they have already been hitting him since January 20.
Progressives, liberals, whatever you call them have absolutely NO strategy except bashing Trump and bashing the "deplorables" who voted for him.
Maybe they could consider acting like grownups?
Trump is a very defective president but he IS president and the thing to ask, for those who did NOT vote for him is, "What is the BEST thing that WE can do?" Marching, and saying"NOT my president" is not exactly the most mature strategy.
We are not nor should we be the worlds policemen. If we think we are going to change places like North Korea into a happy democracy we are sadly mistaken. The North says it needs all this fire power because the US is going to invade etc. We should try and enter into a treaty with them to ensure they are a sovereign nation and then leave them alone.
6
Some one will insure world order or there will be anarchy and chaos until some one does. Who do you want to be that power? Would you realy want a world of anarchy with it's chaos and conflict? Do not mean the US must be involved in every dispute no more than police are involved in every squabble.
Donald Trump doesn't really believe in other people. They don't exist for him. He likes to have his kids around because they help out in the business and are indebted to him, and he's relatively content with Melania because she's photogenic when scantily clad or pretending to munch on diamond necklaces.
Los Angeles? He doesn't much care about Los Angeles. Japan? Where is it again?
Trump has never served in the military and never seen war, but even if he had it wouldn't matter, since he would spend his time in uniform protecting his own skin and brushing his hair.
Nobody should try to play chicken (or chickenhawk) with North Korea and its merciless dictator.
But Trump just might.
Voters elected him (well, almost ... the Electoral College seated him). And now our vast democratic and militarized nation is prepared to create havoc.
In some ways, Americans really don't know much about battle and invasion. We're sheltered by two oceans, and the last bloody conflict pursued on this ground was the Civil War, 1860s. Europeans understand modern warfare and invasion more intimately than we do.
I'm ashamed of our heartless, careless president and scared by him and by all the Republicans who are riding his coat tails.
Can't Caroline Kennedy, former ambassador to Japan, go punch Donald in the nose? I'm guessing she's got a pretty strong uppercut.
Los Angeles? He doesn't much care about Los Angeles. Japan? Where is it again?
Trump has never served in the military and never seen war, but even if he had it wouldn't matter, since he would spend his time in uniform protecting his own skin and brushing his hair.
Nobody should try to play chicken (or chickenhawk) with North Korea and its merciless dictator.
But Trump just might.
Voters elected him (well, almost ... the Electoral College seated him). And now our vast democratic and militarized nation is prepared to create havoc.
In some ways, Americans really don't know much about battle and invasion. We're sheltered by two oceans, and the last bloody conflict pursued on this ground was the Civil War, 1860s. Europeans understand modern warfare and invasion more intimately than we do.
I'm ashamed of our heartless, careless president and scared by him and by all the Republicans who are riding his coat tails.
Can't Caroline Kennedy, former ambassador to Japan, go punch Donald in the nose? I'm guessing she's got a pretty strong uppercut.
183
"I'm ashamed of our heartless, careless president......." I agree but also I am embarrassed and ashamed for our country which elected the president.
This is a great country with a great future and so many of the people here are find, industrious people. So for them to elect Trump as president makes me wonder what happened. It is like having a relative (the country) that you like and respect but who is out doing and saying stupid thimgs (electing trump) which embarrasses everybody.
This is a great country with a great future and so many of the people here are find, industrious people. So for them to elect Trump as president makes me wonder what happened. It is like having a relative (the country) that you like and respect but who is out doing and saying stupid thimgs (electing trump) which embarrasses everybody.
1
Aubrey, I agree with you. I'm not quite sure where I'm living anymore.
1
Americans of a certain ilk delude themselves into thinking that the attack of 9/11 was an act of war. They declared and support a "war on terror," when such is impossible when one is looking at guerilla operations spread all over the world. Those same amercians love their weapons and have amassed large personal arsenals. They do not have the sort of intellectual restraint that makes people like us understand the horror of war, even if we have not witnessed it. they support the madman that the EC put in power based on 70,000 votes in 4 states. They root for this monster, and the mess he may lead us to. And the GOP powers are aligned with these people. Very little can be done to stop what may occur.
1
In October 1962, Walter Lippman, quoting Churchill, wrote the following that appeared in the Washington Post - as the world careened toward a nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union: " Those who are prone by temperament and character to seek sharp and clear-cut solutions of difficult and obscure problems, who are ready to fight whenever some challenge comes from a foreign power, have not always been in the right. On the other hand, those whose inclination is to bow their heads, to seek patiently and faithfully for peaceful compromise, are not always wrong....How many wars have been averted by patience and persisting good will....How many wars have been precipitated by firebrands? Secretary Tillerson is wrong - this is the time for "strategic patience". Mr. McMaster s right - this situation can not continue. Now is the time for the United States to make an unambiguous statement to the DPRK that we do not seek to harm it or its people - but we will defend ourselves and that the time for constructive dialogue is now more than ever.
26
The horns of a Dilemma, mo choice is a good one. But the best is putting the Koreas into negotiations without the U.S. and china or others with an interest. Only they can resolve this stalemate.
But Trump is probably the worst possible decision maker on this sad situation.
Besides, I still want to see his tax returns and a special prosecutor for Russian involvement.
But Trump is probably the worst possible decision maker on this sad situation.
Besides, I still want to see his tax returns and a special prosecutor for Russian involvement.
4
More simply, perpetual war is good for international investors like Trump. War benefits manufacturing economies like China's.
Trump is growing his brand in China. Ivanka is popular there.
The simplest explanation is often correct.
Trump is growing his brand in China. Ivanka is popular there.
The simplest explanation is often correct.
76
Obama clearly made the situation worse by not dealing with it years ago. This shouldn't be a moment of surprise to the world, it's not, North Korea has made it very clear what their intentions are, the US has been too weak to thwart their attempts.
Now, we are at the precipice we're something must be done, none of the options are good because we let it fester too long.
There will be casualties and there will be loss, lots of it, but we have no choice but to strike them hard at the very next provocation.
Would we rather have $1 trillion of l damage and 1 million lives lost over there, or here in the United States, I vote for there.
Now, we are at the precipice we're something must be done, none of the options are good because we let it fester too long.
There will be casualties and there will be loss, lots of it, but we have no choice but to strike them hard at the very next provocation.
Would we rather have $1 trillion of l damage and 1 million lives lost over there, or here in the United States, I vote for there.
2
Maybe if we let the people of South Korea have a vote they will vote to have that one million be over here. It is easy to be cavalier with the lives of other people. Over there.
That would include the around 28,000 US troops stationed "over there". Their families would feel the loss but you I assume would feel safe.
That would include the around 28,000 US troops stationed "over there". Their families would feel the loss but you I assume would feel safe.
14
South Koreans vote for the United States. There isn't a city in America that can hold a candle to Seoul in terms of relative importance to the country. By the time the Korean War ended in July 1953, Seoul was a smoldering pile of rubble. Nothing was left standing. All things considered, the USA would be better able to absorb such a blow if it occurred.
2
Wow. A truly Trumpian worldview: Disaster, pain and death aren't real if it's happening to those "other" people.
9
The North Korean government has shown itself impervious to the suffering of its people; the people themselves are, for the most part, so cowed and brain-washed that they will endure great suffering in terms of lack of life's basics in the name of supporting "the dear leader." So, no sanctions are not worth much.
It does seem that infiltration of the population with information about the outside world is the best bet. As you note, there are certainly those among the N. Korean population who are better based in both knowledge of the outside world and in the reality of their country's situation. Supporting them must be one step.
Trump needs enough restraint to make appropriate show of force when needed without stepping over the line into firing the first shot. Strong missile defenses in S. Korea and Japan are also vital. The scary part is that "restraint" is not a word which one associates with the thin-skinned and impulsive Mr. Trump.
It does seem that infiltration of the population with information about the outside world is the best bet. As you note, there are certainly those among the N. Korean population who are better based in both knowledge of the outside world and in the reality of their country's situation. Supporting them must be one step.
Trump needs enough restraint to make appropriate show of force when needed without stepping over the line into firing the first shot. Strong missile defenses in S. Korea and Japan are also vital. The scary part is that "restraint" is not a word which one associates with the thin-skinned and impulsive Mr. Trump.
82
Nicholas, you outline all the nightmare scenarios from which we have to choose.
The point that I would make to the Chinese is that its Communist Party has more billionaires than any political party in the world - and if a mushroom cloud ultimately over Korea, it will pass over China next.
What's the point of being a billionaire if you don't live long enough to enjoy your money? Or being a powerful nation with its best days ahead of it if that future can be utterly obliterated by nuclear fallout from the lunatic next door?
North Korea should not be the United States' problem. North Korea should be China's problem.
They enabled the grandfather, the father, and now Little Kim.
The Chinese have a much better chance of infiltrating this regime than we do, and ridding the world of a leader that only Dennis Rodman could love.
As they say in the "B" movies, this is business, not personal. The current North Korean regime is an existential threat to long-term Chinese health and prosperity.
In the naked truth be told, the plutocrats running China today have much more in common with South Korea than North Korea.
There are reckless people who should never be allowed near a nuclear launch button. As fate would have it, the American people elected one of these people as President in November 2016; but our mistake is no reason for China to see its future consumed by a nuclear cloud.
They know what they have to do.
The point that I would make to the Chinese is that its Communist Party has more billionaires than any political party in the world - and if a mushroom cloud ultimately over Korea, it will pass over China next.
What's the point of being a billionaire if you don't live long enough to enjoy your money? Or being a powerful nation with its best days ahead of it if that future can be utterly obliterated by nuclear fallout from the lunatic next door?
North Korea should not be the United States' problem. North Korea should be China's problem.
They enabled the grandfather, the father, and now Little Kim.
The Chinese have a much better chance of infiltrating this regime than we do, and ridding the world of a leader that only Dennis Rodman could love.
As they say in the "B" movies, this is business, not personal. The current North Korean regime is an existential threat to long-term Chinese health and prosperity.
In the naked truth be told, the plutocrats running China today have much more in common with South Korea than North Korea.
There are reckless people who should never be allowed near a nuclear launch button. As fate would have it, the American people elected one of these people as President in November 2016; but our mistake is no reason for China to see its future consumed by a nuclear cloud.
They know what they have to do.
218
Prevailing winds in the Northern Hemisphere are from the east so the fallout from Korea with NOT blow over China, but out over the Pacific towards Japan and California.
2
Americans are so stupid. All Asians may look alike. But they are very different.
About 30 million Chinese died in World War II beneath Imperial Japanese bayonets, bombs and boots. Korea was once a Japanese colony. North Korea attacked South Korea and but for a million Chinese 'volunteers' America would have had one Korea after Inchon. There is an armistice but there is no peace treaty.
South Korea and Japan are America's problem and concern. They are also China's problem and concern.
American troops in South Korea and Japan are supposed to die to insure an American response to aggression. China has 150,000 troops along it's border with North Korea to keep the Koreans, Americans and Japanese out.
About 30 million Chinese died in World War II beneath Imperial Japanese bayonets, bombs and boots. Korea was once a Japanese colony. North Korea attacked South Korea and but for a million Chinese 'volunteers' America would have had one Korea after Inchon. There is an armistice but there is no peace treaty.
South Korea and Japan are America's problem and concern. They are also China's problem and concern.
American troops in South Korea and Japan are supposed to die to insure an American response to aggression. China has 150,000 troops along it's border with North Korea to keep the Koreans, Americans and Japanese out.
2
I fully agree that China remains the best hope of avoiding catastrophic war or a nuclear NK blackmailing everybody in perpetuity. It remains to be seen whether China has the actual ability to take out Kim without causing hundreds of thousands to die.
Obama was president for eight years. Kristoff admits that the new Trump administration has been left no good options by the previous administration. Yet, all his handwringing is over Trump's personality instead of Obama's utter failure. The question before us is gut-wrenching, but not complicated. What is worse, allowing Kim Jung Un to threaten the world, including the United States with nuclear weapons, requiring endless appeasement, or the military response that North Korea will take if we preemptively bomb? I say, get it over with. Bomb them preemptively, and let them know that we will completely destroy North Korea in order to protect our allies. We need to be prepared for a rapid succession of escalations, that will keep us one step ahead of the North Koreans. By the way, the Korean War never ended. We are in a ceasefire, which should come to an end given North Korea's threats.
3
@Charles
"We need to be prepared for a rapid succession of escalations, that will keep us one step ahead of the North Koreans. "
Do you seriously think that this administration is even close to being able to manage a task like this? That you think this would be a manageable situation even with the best people behind it makes no sense. Stop drinking the Kool Aid for 5 minutes and use your head man. We are way past blaming the last administration. Your boy is in the hot seat and he is in no way prepared to be there. He can't even get an aircraft carrier group into position let alone manage a war. Wake up. Please. Seriously, we need your vote to turn this around and get competent government back in charge.
"We need to be prepared for a rapid succession of escalations, that will keep us one step ahead of the North Koreans. "
Do you seriously think that this administration is even close to being able to manage a task like this? That you think this would be a manageable situation even with the best people behind it makes no sense. Stop drinking the Kool Aid for 5 minutes and use your head man. We are way past blaming the last administration. Your boy is in the hot seat and he is in no way prepared to be there. He can't even get an aircraft carrier group into position let alone manage a war. Wake up. Please. Seriously, we need your vote to turn this around and get competent government back in charge.
5
North Korea's primary industry is extortion. Sanctions don't work because the government does not care if its citizens starve. They keep building up an arsenal so that in the long run, all those starving Koreans were worth it.
Eventually, the end will be violent. It might be that the real threat of using those weapons causes regime change from inside, or they will get dangerous enough that even China will determine they have to go.
But the concept of a peaceful solution with an armed crazy person with no restraints, and no apparent respect for human life seems to be unlikely. Much to be desired, but unlikely.
Smart people will be trying to figure out how to manage the direction the violence will take.
Eventually, the end will be violent. It might be that the real threat of using those weapons causes regime change from inside, or they will get dangerous enough that even China will determine they have to go.
But the concept of a peaceful solution with an armed crazy person with no restraints, and no apparent respect for human life seems to be unlikely. Much to be desired, but unlikely.
Smart people will be trying to figure out how to manage the direction the violence will take.
7
Leaders of North Korea and Iran do not want to face the fate of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi possessed chemical weapons, ballistic missiles and he pursued nuclear weapons. Then in December 2003, he announced that he would voluntarily eliminate all materials, equipment and programs including weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles and that mission became a suicidal mission for him. North Korea and Iran have noticed that. Gaddafi would be alive today if he had not pursued that route. that is the nightmare for North Korea. This is a question of survival for North Korea, It has thousands of tons of chemical weapons, and missiles that can reach Tokyo and Seoul. Any miscalculation by Trump or aggressive action will end up in millions of people dying in all these countries and that could very well happen because our president is unpredictable. When Vice President Mike Pence says of North Korea, “The era of strategic patience is over" what does he mean? any preemptive strike on North Korea will be foolish. China is the only hope on restraining North Korea but how much hold China has on North Korea is unknown. .North Korean leader is also unpredictable and crazy. We are living in dangerous times.
25
I understand the idea behind strategic patience is to endure a dangerous situation while waiting for the regime in North Korea to collapse. That's apparently not a vain hope, according to various reports from defectors and analyses by Korea-watchers.
Experts on Korea also tell us (as recently as a day or two ago, in the Times) that North Korea values its nuclear weapons as a means of making itself too dangerous to attack while impressing its own subjugated people with its might. Of course, at some point its arsenal and delivery capabilities will become of means of actively intimidating other countries in the region and beyond.
Waiting entails a risk, but waiting while trying the last option set forth in this column and other non-military measures is surely the best course. At least we need to remember that what we're waiting for is not a change of heart in Pyongyang, but a change of circumstances there.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp/
Experts on Korea also tell us (as recently as a day or two ago, in the Times) that North Korea values its nuclear weapons as a means of making itself too dangerous to attack while impressing its own subjugated people with its might. Of course, at some point its arsenal and delivery capabilities will become of means of actively intimidating other countries in the region and beyond.
Waiting entails a risk, but waiting while trying the last option set forth in this column and other non-military measures is surely the best course. At least we need to remember that what we're waiting for is not a change of heart in Pyongyang, but a change of circumstances there.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp/
16
There are tools other than warships to deal with the North Koreans, like, say cutting off imported oil or arms technology. But the China is North Korea's trading partner and potential military ally. They don't want millions of North Korean refugees streaming across their border.
Pakistan scientist Dr. Abdul Khan sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, and it took a network of technology suppliers from the Middle East to Malaysia to enable these programs.
One poor decision by any one of these unsteady regimes during some future period of civil unrest could result in the vaporization of a megacity or two. And that future unrest is far more likely with the looming threat of climate change.
There are no easy answers. But an internal decision to get rid of Kim Jong Un seems the most likely scenario, based on history. That's no guarantee of better intentions from his successor, but it might be a step in the right direction as the Kim Jong family has been a curse to North Korea.
Pakistan scientist Dr. Abdul Khan sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, and it took a network of technology suppliers from the Middle East to Malaysia to enable these programs.
One poor decision by any one of these unsteady regimes during some future period of civil unrest could result in the vaporization of a megacity or two. And that future unrest is far more likely with the looming threat of climate change.
There are no easy answers. But an internal decision to get rid of Kim Jong Un seems the most likely scenario, based on history. That's no guarantee of better intentions from his successor, but it might be a step in the right direction as the Kim Jong family has been a curse to North Korea.
9
Anyone with children will recognize the behavior of North Korea. They have been acting out to get attention. The South has twice as many people and, depending upon source, something like thirty to fifty times the GDP. The North Koreans are broke and they are hungry but, like us, they are also proud.
Since the Korean War never officially ended, there is one clear path for a Christian nation: we should conditionally surrender.
The conditions of surrender should be that they allow us to send them lots of food, and that we, the Chinese, the South Koreans, and Japanese be allowed to slowly and gently bring them into the 21st Century over some stated period, like 20 years.
They would get what they need: economic progress, food, and saving of face. We and their neighbors would get what we want: peace on the peninsula at last.
Since the Korean War never officially ended, there is one clear path for a Christian nation: we should conditionally surrender.
The conditions of surrender should be that they allow us to send them lots of food, and that we, the Chinese, the South Koreans, and Japanese be allowed to slowly and gently bring them into the 21st Century over some stated period, like 20 years.
They would get what they need: economic progress, food, and saving of face. We and their neighbors would get what we want: peace on the peninsula at last.
7
Surrender? You'll have to convince South Korea to do that.
1
Trump is a deal guy, not a relationship builder, and approaches the world transactionally. He thinks in terms of building leverage and using it to get what he wants in negotiations. His recent actions with North Korea, as well as with Syria, Russia, China, Iran and Afghanistan, need to be viewed through that lens.
As a new and inexperienced president, he probably feels like he was being tested by other world leaders. Assad' s chemical attack is an example. So Trump applied tactics from his dealmaking days, in order to gain leverage; he has acted in unpredictable ways to confuse other leaders and plow the ground for negotiation.
He wants them concerned and thrown off balance. Is he really going to act militarily? The Syria and Afghanistan bombings would suggest he would be willing to bomb North Korea. This would worry North Korea and China, who Trump wants to intercede with Kim Jung-Un precisely because the Chinese have leverage over him. He also wants Russia to use its leverage over Syria and Iran to achieve desired outcomes.
When a business deal fails, the result can be bankruptcy of a project--a not infrequent outcome for Trump in the past. The problem with using this strategy in world affairs is that, while business people are driven by money, the desire for power and influence motivates his adversaries. The world is not a failed casino, or an empty golf course, or a TV show. And failure will not just mean a bankrupt project--it may mean World War III.
As a new and inexperienced president, he probably feels like he was being tested by other world leaders. Assad' s chemical attack is an example. So Trump applied tactics from his dealmaking days, in order to gain leverage; he has acted in unpredictable ways to confuse other leaders and plow the ground for negotiation.
He wants them concerned and thrown off balance. Is he really going to act militarily? The Syria and Afghanistan bombings would suggest he would be willing to bomb North Korea. This would worry North Korea and China, who Trump wants to intercede with Kim Jung-Un precisely because the Chinese have leverage over him. He also wants Russia to use its leverage over Syria and Iran to achieve desired outcomes.
When a business deal fails, the result can be bankruptcy of a project--a not infrequent outcome for Trump in the past. The problem with using this strategy in world affairs is that, while business people are driven by money, the desire for power and influence motivates his adversaries. The world is not a failed casino, or an empty golf course, or a TV show. And failure will not just mean a bankrupt project--it may mean World War III.
5
"This is a lousy option, possibly unattainable, and it isn’t a solution so much as a postponement of one. But all the alternatives are worse."
Some situations are intractable, but it takes a thinking president to face this dilemma. Unfortunately, because of only 66,000 moronic voters in Michigan, Pa., and Wisconsin, we don't have this kind of president.
Some situations are intractable, but it takes a thinking president to face this dilemma. Unfortunately, because of only 66,000 moronic voters in Michigan, Pa., and Wisconsin, we don't have this kind of president.
150
David Henry,
Don't blame a handful of voters in three states.
The problem is much larger.
I believe the number of people who voted for Trump was close to sixty million.
That's what one would call an intractable problem.
Don't blame a handful of voters in three states.
The problem is much larger.
I believe the number of people who voted for Trump was close to sixty million.
That's what one would call an intractable problem.
5
I also blame the non-voters, and the 600,000 third party dreamers in Michigan, Pa., and Wisconsin.
The millions who voted for Trump live mostly in the south and mid-west, all of whom had issues with race and women.
They voted their prejudices over their well being. They are responsible for today's insipid madness as well.
The millions who voted for Trump live mostly in the south and mid-west, all of whom had issues with race and women.
They voted their prejudices over their well being. They are responsible for today's insipid madness as well.
Someone should have declared Obama's running out the clock with N. Korea intractable. There was a "thinking president" - "I have my Nobel Prize so I'll do nothing".
This is a very thoughtful analysis of possible options for "solving" the major
problems with North Korea. I think Mr. Kristof is right in that there are no really good solutions. The biggest concern of many is that in both Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un we have two leaders who are authoritarian, narcissistic and have little or no moral compass. Starting a war may be a little easier for both of them than for it would be for most leaders. Let's just hope that cooler heads prevail.
problems with North Korea. I think Mr. Kristof is right in that there are no really good solutions. The biggest concern of many is that in both Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un we have two leaders who are authoritarian, narcissistic and have little or no moral compass. Starting a war may be a little easier for both of them than for it would be for most leaders. Let's just hope that cooler heads prevail.
51
Well that's a sobering assessment. My thoughts are, "if" there is a military conflict with North Korea we should review the last one in the 50's. I don't see Kim Jong un shooting off a nuclear missile at South Korea or Japan unless his demise is imminent.
What I do see is China not sitting it out. Just as in that last war with North Korea, when NK was about to capitulate China jumped in with 100's of thousands of troops. And the U.S. had no choice but to sue for peace. Hence, the DMZ and us stuck forever with 30,000 troops in South Korea.
The idea that articles like this are now showing up though is scary. In my 70's and ask myself when was nuclear war being discussed before. Cuban Missile Crisis? At least then our President had a stable mind. Today, not so.
What I do see is China not sitting it out. Just as in that last war with North Korea, when NK was about to capitulate China jumped in with 100's of thousands of troops. And the U.S. had no choice but to sue for peace. Hence, the DMZ and us stuck forever with 30,000 troops in South Korea.
The idea that articles like this are now showing up though is scary. In my 70's and ask myself when was nuclear war being discussed before. Cuban Missile Crisis? At least then our President had a stable mind. Today, not so.
254
Kim John-un would not nuke Japan or Korea if you were to use nukes.
I would not be surprised if their psychotic narcist emptied his entire nuclear inventory on the US armada endangering over 10,000 US troops that the aircraft carrier and the supporting boats carry on them.
Is it possible that the reason Kim John-un did not test a nuke recently, is because he needs it for possible war, as he realised the US now a psychotic narcissist of his caliber as president?
I would not be surprised if their psychotic narcist emptied his entire nuclear inventory on the US armada endangering over 10,000 US troops that the aircraft carrier and the supporting boats carry on them.
Is it possible that the reason Kim John-un did not test a nuke recently, is because he needs it for possible war, as he realised the US now a psychotic narcissist of his caliber as president?
You must've missed the news that our vaunted "armada" is no where near Korea or Japan.
If the US worries about North Korea, South Korea and Japan should worry about it tens of thousands times more than the US with good reason. But they are treated as if they are infants to soothe but not adults to consult with. Trump is lucky to pass as a respectable president as the leaders and people of these countries forget to get indignant.
6
If a war starts, your children go first, Trump. Aren't your boys so trigger-happy when it comes to defenseless "big game" like elephants and rhino? Let's see how they do in North Korea. In fact, here's my message to all the chickenhawks out there--your children go first.
543
Sorry, but the Trump boys have inherited Dad's malignant "bone spurs."
9
I don't think you understand the risks of the situation. The risk is a conflict where there will be no question of who goes first or second or last. The risk is that entire cities will be destroyed.
And everyone who voted for scrotus gets to send their children and grandchildren first. Any county that voted overwhelmingly for him, gets to send their loved ones first. He is the last person in the world I would be willing to spill my blood for.
1
How frighting is this? One ego driven, self serving family dynasty in battle with another!
339
Both the leader of the United States and the leader of Korea have known nothing but a life of total self-indulgence and getting their way. Frightening, as you say.
4
you sir, are absolutely correct.
1
There is a bright side to apocalyptic nightmare, think of what it s doing to Xanax sales. Be afraid, be very afraid.
2
One of the many problems in international affairs is that there are various state actors with various interests in various configurations. Some dictators - e.g., Saudi Arabia - are friendly to America whereas others - e.g., North Korea - are not. And managing these relationships is a delicate business that requires more patience and less bluster.
And the one thing we know about Trump is that he is all bluster. But there is hope. North Korea and America share a similarity in their leaders. As Ms. Collins notes, both are "narcissistic to the point of psychosis, with a celebrity fixation and a very strange haircut." Maybe this will be helpful. And Dennis Rodman can be the go between!
And the one thing we know about Trump is that he is all bluster. But there is hope. North Korea and America share a similarity in their leaders. As Ms. Collins notes, both are "narcissistic to the point of psychosis, with a celebrity fixation and a very strange haircut." Maybe this will be helpful. And Dennis Rodman can be the go between!
6
If ever North Korea wanted to fulfill their many threats of wanton destruction to its neighbors, they will have no better chance than now. Clearly they will not be the first to launch an attack, as that does not play with the regime's line of being a threatened nation. The casus belli must come from being attacked, and a pre-emptive strike upon them from any nation gives them just that.
Nobody doubts conditions for citizens in North Korea are abysmal and that the regime are criminal dictators, but is flat-out war, with its appalling consequences, really a solution? Does anyone know how regional powers will react? Trump may have met Xi, is infatuated by Putin, but does he really think they will sit by and watch America flatten North Korea? And how does he think Asia will react if Seoul is half-destroyed by the North's artillery?
Trump fires missiles to deflect from his futile presidency at home, to give him the strongman illusion that he so deeply desires. This is but macho posturing from a fraudulent, incompetent and thoroughly dangerous man. His administration even mislaid a carrier group, for heaven's sake!
Diplomacy, de-escalation & more diplomacy are the only way forward. And the continued work to destroy the Kim regime from within.
Trump & war simply cannot happen. He will destroy half the planet for his own vanity.
Nobody doubts conditions for citizens in North Korea are abysmal and that the regime are criminal dictators, but is flat-out war, with its appalling consequences, really a solution? Does anyone know how regional powers will react? Trump may have met Xi, is infatuated by Putin, but does he really think they will sit by and watch America flatten North Korea? And how does he think Asia will react if Seoul is half-destroyed by the North's artillery?
Trump fires missiles to deflect from his futile presidency at home, to give him the strongman illusion that he so deeply desires. This is but macho posturing from a fraudulent, incompetent and thoroughly dangerous man. His administration even mislaid a carrier group, for heaven's sake!
Diplomacy, de-escalation & more diplomacy are the only way forward. And the continued work to destroy the Kim regime from within.
Trump & war simply cannot happen. He will destroy half the planet for his own vanity.
229
Scary scenario, no good options with someone prone to choosing the worst choice.
32
Nothing like stirring the pot and jumping to FAKE conclusions to frighten your audience.
1
"when I was covering North Korea in 1980s it had zero weapons" said Nicholas Kristof. was it the time to act? Leniency will swipe your ace!
Idiotic article. Can't try any new paths? Past 20 years have worked so well? Only the geniuses of the Obama administration knew how to do (nothing useful) about North Korea?
3
Mr. Kristof has yet to find a war he does not like. Having joined the politically motivated chorus of Russia-Trump collusion, he has no credibility in claiming a genuine interest in peacefully resolving the NK problem. Not only China, all other members of the UN Security Council will have to be on board.
1
"Mr. Kristof has yet to find a war he does not like."
They provide fresh crops of victims for him to "rescue".
They provide fresh crops of victims for him to "rescue".
1
Possibly Trump thinks that he will be safe at Mar-a-Lago from the North Koreans, as they will likely nuke Los Angeles or Seattle and why would he care about those cities? They voted for Clinton. (Yes, I'm afraid that Trump really thinks like this.)
If so, Trump is mistaken. The North Koreans don't even need an ICBM to take Trump out. All it will take is a NK submarine close enough to Mar-a-Lago or to Trump Tower. Let's hope Trump's advisors remind him of this, as his fears for his personal safety may the only thing that deters him from starting a terrible war.
If so, Trump is mistaken. The North Koreans don't even need an ICBM to take Trump out. All it will take is a NK submarine close enough to Mar-a-Lago or to Trump Tower. Let's hope Trump's advisors remind him of this, as his fears for his personal safety may the only thing that deters him from starting a terrible war.
381
Maybe NK can't take out Mar-a-Lago, but rising sea level will.
3
No, fear of personal safety will not deter President Trump because he has access to bunkers to ride out any attack. No, not fear of personal safety. Possibly fear of losing his real estate empire is the only thing currently saving the world from annihilation.
Making Trump realize that he and his properties are at risk may inspire a little caution- but I'd hate to count on it. JGAIA.
Everyone's nightmare when this boob was installed into the White House. Hard to think of two more unstable and feckless 'leaders' in charge of huge arsenals. Of course if the US turned to the heavy-duty option, NK would cease to exist. They know that hopefully.
Well done Trumpers - you gave us a real nailbiter here.
Well done Trumpers - you gave us a real nailbiter here.
114
Here from the Foreign Affairs article Kristof recommends:
THE NEXT KOREAN WAR
"It is December 2018, and North Korea has just launched a heavy artillery barrage against targets in Seoul, killing thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands; it is too soon to say. U.S. and South Korean forces—now unified under U.S. command, according to the provisions of the Mutual Defense Treaty—have fired artillery and rockets at North Korea’s military positions and launched air strikes against its advanced air defense network."
That is the Alternative Reality that Donald Trump is on the brink of creating. And then from the FA article this:
"But few thought North Korea would go so far as to risk its own destruction by attacking South Korea."
But many of us do think that Donald Trump could go so far as to create a world where neither Daesh nor climate change will still matter. And in that world, the survivors or surviving countries will have to start all over again.
There is no single sentence that can satisfactorily close this comment, so I simply end.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
THE NEXT KOREAN WAR
"It is December 2018, and North Korea has just launched a heavy artillery barrage against targets in Seoul, killing thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands; it is too soon to say. U.S. and South Korean forces—now unified under U.S. command, according to the provisions of the Mutual Defense Treaty—have fired artillery and rockets at North Korea’s military positions and launched air strikes against its advanced air defense network."
That is the Alternative Reality that Donald Trump is on the brink of creating. And then from the FA article this:
"But few thought North Korea would go so far as to risk its own destruction by attacking South Korea."
But many of us do think that Donald Trump could go so far as to create a world where neither Daesh nor climate change will still matter. And in that world, the survivors or surviving countries will have to start all over again.
There is no single sentence that can satisfactorily close this comment, so I simply end.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
22
@ myself - I think I have found a single closing sentence, perhaps too trivial, but perhaps perfect since everything with Trump is trivial.
"One after another, members of the Trump clan tell husband, father, father in law that each has so many business interests in the countries to be attacked that there is no way, they his advisers, can allow him to go further."
"One after another, members of the Trump clan tell husband, father, father in law that each has so many business interests in the countries to be attacked that there is no way, they his advisers, can allow him to go further."
3
A tragic inevitability is built in to the end of open hostilities that temporarily "stalled" the Korean conflict with the 1953 Armistice, and any hope that time would heal and ultimately dial back that tragic inevitability has proven to be an empty hope. The question to consider today is not will it happen but when it happens, since any calculus for restraint has been solely dependent on an American president with qualities and that the present occupant of the White House is tragically missing so that NOW the unthinkable, the use of our nuclear arsenal in an attempt "protect" our Asian allies will be Trump's rationale.
12
Structural conditions of the NK crisis: A. the US possesses “escalation dominance” over NK. It’s not so on the conventional weapons ladder. B. NK’s rulers live everyday with the sword of agonizing death hanging over their heads. That means their primary motive is to keep on hanging to power and not NK’s interests or even its survival. C. NK greatest asset is its assumed operational capability to bomb or even nuke Seoul. D. China has a central interest in keeping NK from achieving operative regional nuclear capability and a vital interest in preventing the US from achieving legitimacy for nuclear use in the Korean peninsula. That means Beijing will most probably go a long way coercing Pyongyang toward the most minimal of nuclear deterrence, at the same time, it will severely view American strategic reaction to NK.
Once it’s understood that “saving face” is taken quite literally by the NK regime, it’s imperative to discard all “surrender to blackmail” howling and look for a solution which will enable Kim Jong-un to declare victory and step back from the nuclear brink (while letting him keep missiles testing). Thus the prudent and moral course should be a public offering of carrots to Pyongyang (diplomatic opening, aid, civil reactors -- supported by international guarantees); while in secret channels waving the highly accurate Tomahawks to concentrate the dictator mind on the fact that, for him, continuing on the nuclear path is also a survival issue.
Once it’s understood that “saving face” is taken quite literally by the NK regime, it’s imperative to discard all “surrender to blackmail” howling and look for a solution which will enable Kim Jong-un to declare victory and step back from the nuclear brink (while letting him keep missiles testing). Thus the prudent and moral course should be a public offering of carrots to Pyongyang (diplomatic opening, aid, civil reactors -- supported by international guarantees); while in secret channels waving the highly accurate Tomahawks to concentrate the dictator mind on the fact that, for him, continuing on the nuclear path is also a survival issue.
2
I'm getting the odd feeling that I'm stuck in a time warp. This column could have been written back in 2001 after another unpopular Republican, who won the presidency under highly controversial circumstances, declared that Iraq was a menace to world peace. Ah I remember it well--all the scare stories of WMDS, the overpowering need to free the Iraqi people from a terrible despot, and how the Iraqi army was the best military force in the region helped catapult America into an unpopular war. Is history about to repeat itself with North Korea??
188
Axis of Evil, anyone?
1
Sharon -- your attempt at parallelism here is not very effective. In fact, not effective at all.
The only controversy with Trump winning was the dems didn't like it.
And there is no question NK has nukes.
True, both Iraq and NK are a menace to world peace, NK is bigger because of the highly unstable nature of its leader and the fact it does have a nuclear capability.
The only controversy with Trump winning was the dems didn't like it.
And there is no question NK has nukes.
True, both Iraq and NK are a menace to world peace, NK is bigger because of the highly unstable nature of its leader and the fact it does have a nuclear capability.
In 2001, it was collusion between the Bush Administration and NYT. This time is different: the President claims to be in control of the situation and relying on China for now to pressure NK, but his critics are crying wolf and itching for war.
The Korean armistice was signed in 1953. That was 64 years ago. We have 28,500 Americans stationed in South Korea. At what point does this become ridiculous.
Frankly we should just ignore the North. China makes a lot of money off of the United States and at some point they need to make a choice. Do they want our money or do they want to enable a tyrant. China is the one who doesn't want the North and South reunification to happen.
Until North Korea actually does something we can't justify an attack. The world will not support us and frankly Americans are war weary. You deal with a bully by removing yourself from the situation.
Frankly we should just ignore the North. China makes a lot of money off of the United States and at some point they need to make a choice. Do they want our money or do they want to enable a tyrant. China is the one who doesn't want the North and South reunification to happen.
Until North Korea actually does something we can't justify an attack. The world will not support us and frankly Americans are war weary. You deal with a bully by removing yourself from the situation.
5
Diddle diddle dumpling Pacifist Don
Now putting his boots-on-ground on,
Once called the Iraq War a con,
Diddle diddle dumpling Pacifist Don.
Diddle diddle dumpling Populist
Morphed into a Nationalist
On tax cuts for the Rich insist
Diddle diddle dumpling Populist!
Now putting his boots-on-ground on,
Once called the Iraq War a con,
Diddle diddle dumpling Pacifist Don.
Diddle diddle dumpling Populist
Morphed into a Nationalist
On tax cuts for the Rich insist
Diddle diddle dumpling Populist!
127
If you were Europe, wouldn't you be looking for an alternative "leader of the free world" right now?
Even if we avoid a horribly destructive war, Trump is still doing longstanding damage to our role in the world.
Why do Republicans now never look two steps down the road?!