By all means, let's crowd source a nuclear war with North Korea on the NYT comments section.
1
Trump must stop taking North Korea's bait. Like the child that he is, Trump keeps spewing ludicrous threats of military annihilation against a country that appears to be largely bluster. He should shut his mouth, turn off the tweets and let the adults in the room, like Mattis, cool down the kind of heat that could set off a trip wire and lead to unintended military consequences.
3
Given all Trump's bluster about raining fire and devastation upon North Korea's, we must remember that old axiom of war: "You break it, you fix it." If the war-hungry get their way, we will end up turning a large part of that country into ashes. And then we will have to rebuild it, spending hundreds of billions not just on battle but also to stave off untold subsequent civilian suffering and the streaming of hundreds of thousands of refugees into South Korea and China. Are we really prepared for that cost, that toll? Have Trump, and his hawkish idolizers, not learned the lessons of Iraq and Viet Nam?
2
Suddenly, we hear less talk and bluster from NK.
They've been allowed to talk and threaten the world with no one standing up to them for so long they just assumed it would never happen, Now it has.
They know any attempt to launch a missile, attack us or our allies will result in swift and devastating punishment now. All these little men in the Backroom are wondering what to do now that their bluff has been called.
Lots of big talk, not a lot of follow through from the North Korean side, I'd like to see them make even one small miscalculation.
We flew right by their airspace, they either didn't see us because their equipment is so outdated or they were afraid to even look up at us.
Either way, they need to be taught a lesson, and I hope it's coming soon.
2
NK's conventional forces are antiquated, malnourished, ill-supplied, and helpless. Kim's only defenses are its mountain artillery aimed at Seoul and its nuclear deterrence aimed at the US. This decrepit regime can only survive by brainwashing citizens and blackmailing opponents. Shame on China for invading peaceful neighbors and sustaining such a despotic one.
2
Of course North Korea fears a war with the US. That is why they have to develop a strong nuclear arms program. It would be better if both of them got rid of such arms.
1
'Lu Kang, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said on Tuesday at a regular news conference in Beijing that China was “very displeased with the escalating war of words between the United States and North Korea,” adding that there would be “no winners from rashly triggering war on the peninsula.”' Mr Lu's words about a lack of winners if it comes to war on - but certainly not limited to - the Korean peninsula should resound with all statesmen/women and with all others concerned with the survival of humankind on this blue planet. The United States and the DPRK need at long last to sit down and negotiate an peace treaty between them, more than 64 years after the signing of the Armistice Agreement of 27 July 1953. Any other course is sheer folly....
Henri
2
The situation is quite nebula if we bear in mind the: Red Tillerson proposal for no dismissal of Kim, help to change the regime, help to reunite the two countries, send troop at the 38° parallel. In addition Trump proposed to meet Kim under certain conditions. Furthermore the China leader suggested Kim to abide to the international rule concerning the nuke. In spite of all the above Kim is proceeding with his mysterious plan.
1
North Korea - Why would they give up nuclear weapons? They would have to be stupid. We have ships right off their shores. We are flying armed combat aircraft right along their borders. We keep threatening to attack them. They have seen us attack and depose in Libya and Iraq. If I were Kim Jong-un, I'd definitely want nukes.
Btw, what right do we have to tell another country that they can't have nukes? We have them, we have used them, and we have shown a history of aggression towards countries with different ideologies than ours.
Our best bet, is to make a deal with China, that if North Korea collapses, that we won't send our troops past the 38th parallel. They would be much more likely to let NK collapse if our troops weren't going to end up on their border.
3
More flights over NK with more bombers. They are particularly afraid of bombers since they were bombed into the stone age during the Korean War.
We called their bluff and now we have a president, for better or worse, that wants to play back at them and is willing to go to the mat. It's about time as it's the only thing this tyrant understands,
Now his little tail is beginning to curl between his legs.
Keep up the pressure President trump. Force their hand and punish them harshly if they miscalculate. This boy must be humbled before the might of the United States.
Let him beg in front of the UN for us to allow him to stay in power, that's a start.
2
Nobody wins a nuclear war. The hope would be to survive. North Korea has long planned their society to survive a nuclear war. Its a worst case plan but it's a plan.
When your nation is under constant threat from the worlds largest nuclear power (the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons on a human target - twice)you plan for a nuclear war. When your country has been leveled by the worlds largest nuclear power, and you have survived, you plan for survival. Worst case, but a plan.
Americans like to see Kim as crazy. That's propaganda. Kim may be on the short side in any war but he has prepared for the worse. That's not crazy. It's a plan.
3
Is it "cautious" to: (a) develop nuclear weapons; (b) develop ICBMs; (c) with the stated purpose of hitting the US? For those who say this is somehow intended to defend the regime against a US attack, NK already has an unshakable patron/protector (China), and the only reason the US would ever attack NK is to neutralize its nuclear weapons.
SO, the nuclear weapons invite an attack. They do little or nothing to prevent one.
Sadly, the NY Times and many of its readers are suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome", equivalent to the "Obama Derangement Syndrome" we observed for 8 years in Republicans.
1
Am I right, or am I right: I'm tired of being right. Are my redwood forests going to be come to hot to live amongst or even vacation temporarily (so the limit certain radiation exposure from fallout)?
“The North Koreans know how to choose their words,” said Cheon Seong-whun. “They know how to calculate their stakes. They are not reckless.”
Most of us know that the Kim regime is not suicidal, and would not start a war with the US. But is Trump as smart as the North Koreans in handling the crisis and responding to bellicose rhetoric? There is the risk that Trump more likely than Kim to start a war, because he is obsessed with nuclear weapons and wouldn't hesitate to use them.
2
The main problem with the Trump-Kim name-calling contest is that it helps Kim Jong-Un. If wiser heads told Trump, he either didn't understand, or he just couldn't risk airing his usual adolescent invective in an inappropriate venue.
1
Terrifyingly, I believe it probable that this war has already been planned by U.S. policymakers, the same as the invasion of Iraq was. Kim Jong-Un thought he could avoid the fate of Iraq and Libya by going nuclear. Our policymakers, however, are willing to wreak nuclear destruction to achieve their goals. Their single-minded aim is to maintain the "New World Order" policy of absolute world dominance by the U.S. which began in the administration of George H.W. Bush in Gulf War I. The fact that Kim Jong-Un is a bizarre loose cannon is playing into our policymakers' hands.
3
Instead of dropping bombs and and sending troops to fight, my suggestion is dropping food for the North Korean citizens and encouraging them to rise up against the ones who are starving them.
1
To put this issue in perspective, the GDP of North Korea in 2015 was just over $16 billion. The GDP is Puerto Rico is 6 times as large. The US GDP is 1,000 times larger.
The U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, on Korea during the Korean war.
North Korea became a pawn in the cold war. When the cold war ended, the US could have moved to normalize relations, sign a peace treaty, finally bring the conflict to an end. Nothing was done.
A strong President could still normalize relations with a country 1/1000th of its size at little cost. A strong president could give peace a chance.
Why has this problem not been solved by the nations of the world?
8
I'm still wondering how a country with a GDP one-sixth the size of Puerto Rico's has been able to develop such advanced weaponry...
2
Kim Jong-Un is holding a pretty good trump card and neither China or South Korea care to force his hand.
2
Why can't we 'hug each other for peace'? No-one wants an unwinnable war - there are never any winners in war and in the middle are us - the peoples of various nations who watch on as horrified on-lookers in a non-spectator arena.
'Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the earth'. Hug each other like there is no tomorrow. Where are our souls in all of this?
Please, President Trump/Supreme Leader Kim Jung-un - SOS SOS.
2
What's?
Hug each other is your solution to this crisis?
1
Too many, with short memories, blame Trump for agitating Kim and endangering all of us. To the contrary, Kim needs no provocation to level a litany of threats:
According to the Washington Post, Kim took aim at Obama in May 2014, promising "Divine retribution for the juvenile delinquent Obama!" He also used a litany of racially-infused slurs, referring to Obama as "a clown," a "dirty fellow," and suggesting that he go "live with a group of monkeys in the world’s largest African natural zoo and lick the breadcrumbs thrown by spectators.”
Obama was the target of further racist insults in December 2014, when Kim accused him of interrupting his country's Internet services amid the Sony Pictures hacking controversy.
I don't much respect Obama for not responding aggressively. And Trump's tactics are not without justification.
By the way, Kim also enjoys attacking women0. His insults of the South's first female head of state commonly zeroed in on her gender. An official statement in April 2014 described Ms. Park as a "crafty prostitute" after she met with Obama. The statement reportedly referred to her as Obama's "comfort woman,". He also said that Park "reminds one of an indiscreet girl who earnestly begs a gangster to beat someone or a capricious whore who asks her pimp to do harm to a man while providing sex to him."
Later, in February 2016, Kim derided Park as a "old, insane bitch" headed for “a violent death” after she condemned a nuclear test by the North.
4
This insult war solves nothing. Obama did the right thing but not getting caught up in it. I'm afraid that for Trump this is a hobby. The best negotiation is to say nothing.
1
"Pyongyang probably hopes...South Korea will call for calm and restraint..."
"Analysts said the lack of a regular, high-level diplomatic contact between Pyongyang and Washington..."
maybe it's time to talk to seoul. at least dialogue would not need to be literally translated. moscow or other diplomatic channels are also possible.
...
"...after speaking to reporters in New York on Monday."
speaking to reporters from the NYT? it seems like a lot people read articles from the NYT and their comments these days. haha.
North Korea is claiming "If we are attacked by US, we will use nuclear missiles to US."
But if this crisis is not solved now, NK will say "If our invasion to South Korea is obstructed by US, we will use nuclear missiles to US"
3
America wants a provocation to unleash its military against DPRK. Real or otherwise. A "Gulf of Tonkin" incident where a US or ally ship gets torpedo'd. A SAM taking down a US aircraft that intentionally "accidentally" overflew DPRK. A fake radio message telling North Korean artillery units to open fire on Seoul. Don't worry, the US military is entirely capable of generating whatever false flag or provocation is needed. The way you lead America to war is first by demonizing a leader (Saddam Hussein, Assad, Kim Jong-Un), then generating a provocation, then let 'er rip.
6
A provocation is especially important here because China has pledged to intervene only if the US takes the first shot.
2
"Even as the North has matched Mr. Trump’s recent bellicose rhetoric...".
This is an incorrect characterization of what happened. There is no "matching", let's not pretend there is a cycle here. Kim Jong-un started this and has unceasingly ratcheted up the threats - until, lo, "caution" is detected on his part by "some".
And why do you think that is? It mightn't have anything to do with Trump's (non-bellicose but firm) response to tin-pot bully would it?
Maybe the caution would have happened anyway, nay even faster had Trump spoken like a lamb. Ya think?
3
Under some interpretations, it sounds like Trump can never be held in the wrong:
* If he starts a war over Twitter, "Kim was dangerous and needed to be taken out"
* If Kim backs down after ratcheting up the threats, "it was because Trump showed US resolve"
* If a nuke hits the US, "it was because Clinton and Obama [but not Bush...] didn't stop his program earlier" and not because Trump severely bungled the endgame.
North Korea is wildly overconfident in its ability to destroy the US. The US is wildly overconfident in its ability to destroy North Korea without suffering mass casualties to its allies and potential nuclear strikes on its home. Neither side has a positive outcome from war and they both know it, so it's time everyone drops the farcical posturing, sits down at the table, and forges a grand bargain which sees a fully inspected denuclearization in exchange for a peace treaty and lifting of sanctions. Everyone treats a peace treaty as if it's the ultimate concession, but all it's doing is acknowledging that the Korean War is over. And the very purpose of the sanctions is to pressure North Korea to negotiate away its nuclear program in exchange for relief.
3
Trump speaks the only language that dictators understand.
4
Yeah, infantile and sophomoric.
4
North Korea's nuclear ambitions achieve multiple objectives. As Neil mentioned, DPRK wants to invade South Korea and subjugate them to the same treatment North Koreans currently "enjoy."
More important, Kim wants to stay in power. North Korea is far far behind in economic and social development compared to all of its neighbors. Kim is surrounded by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd largest economies and Russia with the largest nuclear arsenal and a powerful southern neighbor. Xi made approaches to improve ties between China and South Korea. China has richer ties with South Korea and Japan. North Korea is feeling left out and behind, kind of like Trump supporters. Kim is understandably mad and Kim wonders why China is trading and enriching a country he sees as destiny to pillage. His grandfather, Kim Il Sung, asked for China's help to invade in 1970s.
Kim is stuck in a timewarp. Kim cannot leave North, he'll be purged, captured, assassinated, a prisoner in his own country. He can't completely open North Korea up either without risking a revolt from his own people as they will learn more about outside world. DPRK's former ambassador admitted revolt as a plausible scenario, as evident by banning South Korea's TV shows or any outside literature showing a better life outside DPRK. Kim's biggest enemy isn't US, it's his own people. He needs nukes to stay in power. Once he has nukes, the US doesn't want them to collapse for fear nukes fall in wrong hands inside a failed state.
4
I'd like to soak in the small optomism of this piece, but, then, watching the current Ken Burns "Vietnam" and especially the segment on how the USN TurnerJoy in a Navy task force off the coast of North Vietnam collides into war -- one learns, again, the perils when great powers and small engage in hot words and shadow boxing with weapons of war -- and how minor collisions, unintended, can explode beyond the designs of leaders into bloody pain upon their citizens and a generation of cruel conflict. As a wise man once said -- In the end, all history is tragedy. Plus ca change.
2
Who was it said, "Be bold. . .be bold. . .but not TOO bold"?
I don't remember.
But that'd be good advice for the President and his advisors. Especially his military advisors.
So much better, no? to be arguing over bombers and reconnaissance planes. . . .
. . .and not nuclear weapons.
And one thing (seems to me) remains indubitably clear. Clear as the nose on my face. Clear as that weird hairpiece on .. . . . . . . . .
. oh! Sorry!
WE GOTTA START TALKING TO THESE PEOPLE. So. . . .
. .let's start talking to these people.
2
I see only three possibilities for the Kim regime, none of them good, and none of them could remotely be described as "cautious." The decision to pursue nuclear weapons and very aggressive posturing threw "caution" out the window, long ago.
* North Korea escalates itself into war. If it goes nuclear, it will be much worse for North Korea and the KIm regime than the Korean war ... that killed 20% of North Korea's people, but the Kims stayed in power. After this one, the horror would be much worse, and the Kims will be gone.
* North Korea backs down and accepts some sort of denuclearization and supervision. I think it likely that the Kims would be thrown out of power, though a harsh military dictatorship might remain.
* North Korea tries to continue its current game, further alienating all the nations of the world, but specifically China. China is actually the principal target for North Korean blackmail -- they are the nation that controls the resources the Kim government needs to keep going. This will not end well for the Kim's at least -- giving China a strong reason to pursue regime change is a very stupid idea.
At the root of North Korea's problems and misunderstanding are that there will never be any reason the rest of the world that matters, but particularly the USA, will "accept" North Korea as a nuclear power. Why would we? Why would the Chinese? What nation would? Pakistan perhaps? So what?
4
It doesn't matter if the USA "accepts" NK or not, it will have nuclear weapons and I don't think they will strike first.
2
More power to our military.
We should rattle the rocket man and his henchmen enough that they make a fatal mistake.
They will soon learn that the Japanese may tolerate missiles flying over their country which China will never tolerate - but Americans mean business.
What we should be looking for his another gulf of Tonkin incident and finish off this wreteched dictator and his henchmen.
And make China understand that if it wants to be considered a global power - it needs to support responsible allies and not some tin pot dictator.
3
Our Leader is more insane than the one in North Korea. It is frightening. Trump thinks he is playing a reality game.
3
It's a sad state of affairs when the "responsible adults in the room" are the North Koreans compared to POTUS Trump. Americans should really pay attention to irrational bluster and pointed threats by Donald Trump. Chaos and great international instability, all with horrific outcomes, and the disintegration of the fantastic life in the United States for all citizens which can easily arise from actions of one coddled and spoiled individual who learned threats and bullying were "negotiations".
In Trump's pathetic mind-set and narcissist way of seeing the world, it's Trump vs. The World. How much proof does the House of Representative, Senate, Governors, and above all, the American people, need to come to the conclusion Donald Trump couldn't manage a two car funeral procession, much less develop a complex international strategy built upon trust and communication with both alloy and foe alike. Trump's managerial style has decimated the State department - Brilliant! Just when the most important aspects of diplomacy and behind the scenes information is required, Trump's approach puts the world at risk.
Trump's supporters love it when Trump is being Trump. Nary do these dim-witted fools and idiots ever contemplate the question: "What if Donald trump is wrong?" God help us.... better yet, get this pathetic impostor of a national leader out of that position and into jail.
3
It's even sadder when so called 'Liberals' are apologizing for a state that has gulags and slave labour, torture and imprisonment without trial; against their own President.
4
We're literally trying to save your life, so please show some more respect.
-- from the other side of the Hudson, the side that isn't a target for a 250 kt nuke.
On Friday Donald Trump led a rally for Senator strange at the Werner von Braun Center in Huntsville Alabama.
Werner von Braun was a Nazi terrorist who was instrumental in dropping bombs on innocent civilians in London during World War Two. I can think of no setting worse for the president of the USA to threaten North Korea. A monument named for a rocket man terrorist of the last century should not exist in the USA but selecting this site for a political rally is a sad statement for a country torn by political rivalry speaks volumes of the need for honest dialogue and an honest examination of history.
5
It's worse than that. More people died building the V-2 rockets than were killed by it as a weapon. Von Braun, an SS man himself, visited that concentration camp regularly and witnessed the slave labor, the starvation, the abuse. See the Wikipedia entry.
4
Thanks Wade,
I am still in shock from hearing that there is a Wernher von Braun Center in America but it is Alabama.
Worse yet although I was and is still a Tom Lehrer fan. The Wernher von Braun song from 1965 is still echoing in my head and someone who was very dear to my wife and I was a child in London during the war and suffered from PTSD until he died.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/wernher-von-braun-lyrics-tom-lehrer.html
2
Little Rocket Man vs. the Deranged Dotard, it's like the WWE match from hell.
4
The flip side to the DPRKs cautious bluster is the equally cautious bluster of President Trump. If the U.S. has such clear superiority, then why hasn't it simply blitzed the North Koreans into devastating defeat? What in the calculus does this article omit? The answer is the vulnerability of South Korea. The U.S, recognizes that in spite of the certainty of victory, the cost makes a preemptive attack a bridge too far. One is restrained by the fear of destruction, the other is restrained by fear of the destruction of a strategic ally. Once Kim acquires the capability to achieve a mode of mutually assured destruction with the U.S. a new phase will begin. The U.S. is caught on the horns of a dilemma: whether it can accept nuclear parity or will it risk the immolation of Seoul. Sanctions will not forestall the emergence of the DPRKs emergence as a nuclear power: indeed, it may speed it up. The U.S., in this light, has no strategic advantage, despite overwhelming military superiority. Time is not on its side.
1
Despite a huge amount of criticism of Trump' NK policy,
I am not convinced that Trump is not right in being confrontational with
NK.
I did not vote for Trump nor do I support him,
but I am not persuaded that his policy on NK is not the right one.
1
If Kim is allowed to develop nukes unmolested where does this end? He's 33. We could be facing nuclear blackmail for the next 50 years.
We have faced it for 20 already.
1
What policy? It's just bluster. The "policy" is the same. The only difference would be if there is a first strike.
If there is caution in the bluster, it suggests that North Korea wants to survive and can therefore be deterred using the same MAD doctrines which got us through the cold war. That's what prevents the North from blackmailing us.
China is afraid that North Korea could implode and then hoards of North Koreans would become refugees fleeing across the border to China. Here's a thought: could all the other interested parties, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. offer to share in the numbers of refugees taken on? In this way, China could be assured that they wouldn't have to be alone, and they would be more likely to push North Korea. It would also show the world that the U.S. is not just out for ourselves.
1
Whatever NK real intentions are it should be clear that their missile and nuclear technology came from China and Russia. At the same time Russia stages a provocative military display near eastern Europe. At the same time China has assaulted Japanese and others fishing fleets in the S. China sea. China is also building military bases in the S China sea area. Russia used electronic means to interfere w Ukrainian elections. It is clear that Russia acted to change the outcome in our 2016 Presidential elections. Finally, it seems to me that US, Chinese, and Russian leaders are playing hardball at a time when we would all be better off to tackle global warming. We are faced with a real crisis that has caused serious damage to human existence even without military games.
15
Global Warming is about to get very warm.
There is caution in the US as well, on the part of Trump's critics, and the caution is motivated by fear, not fear that North Korea will mount a nuclear attack against the US, because that is not a realistic possibility today, but fear that Trump has read the situation correctly, that he will back Kim down, that by doing so he will put an end to the North Korean threat.
1
@gbc
I think you are absolutely correct. Trump is trying to goad Kim into taking the first shot now while KIM's ability to deliver an ICBM to the US is marginal at best. Trump's is calling Kim's bluff now, before Kim can actually deliver. For the US to be secure, NK has to be denuclearized. Trump understands this and is doing the right-pushing Kim into a corner. This could have been done years ago.
3
My only concern is that they have thought asymmetrically and hidden several A-bombs in the USA already.
That's what I would have done. A sleep agent with a U235 bomb or several in different US cities. You would cause mass panic, because nobody would know where they were or how many were hidden.
Yeah, that's possible.
What are you smiling?
China was using NK as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations with the US. They would help restrain their unruly neighbor if perhaps we allowed them to keep dumping steel, or allowed some other trade concession. But Trump isn't playing it that way; instead of being jacked around, he talks trash back, raising the possibility of a war that China doesn't want on their borders. Their bargaining chip isn't worth as much anymore.
Or maybe Trump is just being thin skinned and stumbling into a minefield. But the North Koreans and the Chinese don't know which one it is.
6
The sad thing is that we have the perfect lever: if China can persuade North Korea to give up their nukes, we can withdraw the THAAD deployment they hate so much. But you're right, that isn't how Trump wants to play the game. He wants everyone to bow to him or else, issuing threats and calling it negotiation. To say that this isn't working would be the understatement of the 21st century.
1
Obama summed up the situation quite accurately when he said in 2016, "We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals, but aside from the humanitarian costs of that, they are right next door to our vital ally, [South] Korea."
This summarizes the stand-off between North Korea and the United States. North Korea has no incentive to strike first because it will play the only card it has. A perpetual yet unfulfilled threat is what has kept the Kim Dynasty in power for over half of a century. Shooting first wins Kim Jong Un absolutely nothing and makes him lose everything. The US has a strong disincentive to not strike first because of the massive risks and costs involved for itself and its allies. A US first trike could precipitate the very nuclear war it wants to prevent, especially if China and Russia get involved as they did in the first Korean War. So instead of direct confrontation, the US instead tries to cut the legs out from North Korea by indirect means.
Of course, none of this anticipates Donald Trump, who has the right mix of ignorance and personal incentive to start a war. Nothing lifts a US President's approval ratings like a war, and he might even have an excuse to shut down Mueller's investigation under the guise of war-time national security measures. The one thing you can always count on Donald Trump to do is whatever is good for Donald Trump.
28
Is Kim rational? Is he sane? Is he surrounded by sage advisers speaking truth to absolute power, or does the execution of senior officials by mortar rounds make their replacements wary? How can anyone truly be an expert on this situation? In my view, its sort of like being an expert on UFOs.
2
An F-35 can evade/destroy the S-300, but we constantly heard that our planes would be shot down over Syria. I doubt North Korea could down an American jet, but it may well attempt this feat if it believes itself in danger. How would we respond? Mutual opacity is dangerous. America should make explicit where its commitments are and where its red lines lie, and back them up. It shouldn't be engaging in bellicose rhetoric that impedes clarity. We heard a lot about Mr. Obama's unwillingness to enforce red lines, but Donald Trump, with his impulsivity, has drawn and erased a few.
"The level of mutual understanding between the United States and North Korea is low, while the chances of miscalculation are high." I agree with that, but Cheon goes on to say that North Korea isn't reckless and chooses its words carefully. Really? If the rhetoric we've heard from the Kim regime, which far surpasses anything Trump has said or tweeted, isn't reckless, what is? The regime talks about surviving another war with America, living underground. What's that about? It's evident from reading what they say that North Korea doesn't understand Trump. Does anyone think we understand Kim?
Allowing North Korea to scare us to the negotiating table in order to extract concessions is a bad idea. A firm response requires intelligence and poise, not Twitter tantrums. Progressives think everything can be solved by talking. What Donald Trump is doing, though, is not cunning. It's dumb and it's scary.
1
Mr. Kim knows that if he can threaten a US city with a nuclear strike, he can leverage to have US troops removed from the South. The government in Seoul headed by Mr. Moon is begging to talk to Mr. Kim and is ignored. Mr. Kim will talk to tbe South on his terms and show his people what a great leader he is.
3
North Korea wants nuclear weapons for one reason . With a sufficient number they can act with impunity in their sponsorship of terrorism. You won't see caution once they feel they have achieved their objective.
4
Nah, what would they gain from that? If they have an ultimate military objective and don't simply want a deterrent, it's to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea so they can unify by force. I don't think Kim cares one whit about terrorism one way or the other, certainly not enough to drive home a multi-decade quest for a nuclear weapons program in the face of massive international pressure.
Keep moving ahead....keep up the pressure. NK about to crack, let's help it along...
10
We need to deal with NK now before they can put a nuke on an ICBM that can reach US mainland. They have one or the other but not both, yet. We also don't want to fire the first shot.
Trump goads Kim with tweets, Kim reacts with missile launches, China is pressured to further increase sanctions. Repeat. Sounds like a plan.
Eventually, progressiively tightening sanctions collapses the regime, induces a coup from generals not wanting to die in a losing war, or makes Kim do something stupid which gives US, ROK, and Japan excuse to respond with force.
If we allow NK time to build dozens of ICBMs and the ability to destroy the US
on a whim, future generations will ask why we did nothing when we had a chance. If NK is allowed to keep its nukes, any other country can ask why not us?
7
Believe no one human will miss usa.
Sooner than you think, one side will fire the first shot and all bets are off.
3
How anyone thinks we are close to a nuclear war is beyond me.
3
Because even people who don't want a war sometimes make stupid missteps that trigger one. Let's say North Korea shoots down a US plane. Let's say some random guard shoots over the DMZ and hits a South Korean guard. Let's say there's another earthquake near the nuclear test site and we think they've just set off another nuke. And so on.
Reducing tensions is critical to achieving a situation where these sorts of things aren't interpreted as the opening salvo of a massive war, which would push us all back from the brink. But that is impossible until both sides agree to talk to one another.
1
Notwithstanding, something must be done about DPRK's nuclear weapons development. Sooner or later they will have a viable weapon and then what? I can foresee North Korea selling a warhead to an international terrorist group, and now you've got a serious problem. ISIS wouldn't hesitate to roll one into a major city somewhere in the middle east and detonate it. I think the USA has to decapitate the regime in the DPRK and dismantle its military. Within the next 6 months would be nice.
10
So China didn't invade the Korean peninsula until the forces invading the north from the south (provoked by an initial southwards invasion by the north) got so enthusiastic with their successes that they started to get close to the Chinese border. Think about it. If the US takes a pre-emptive strike against NK, who is to say where all the bombs of the combatants will stop falling or go? China and Russia BOTH border North Korea and either or both could decide, depending on events, that some sort of tactical nuclear strike is called for. - With up to 4 countries tossing nuclear weapons around how do we know it won't go strategic with the big boys? If you want to safeguard against terrorism, stop importing Middle East oil, and stop financing the purveyors of hate. And don't kill millions of innocent people.
1
It wouldn't be politically correct to wage war with North Korea- Somebody may say something mean and there would be a lot of hurt feelings. We need crisis intervention, counseling, safe spaces and emotional support animals STAT!
3
Ouch. Regardless of your disdain for people, please watch the PBS Vietnam series and tell me what war is good for.
This may be the case where force is justified, but no matter what, it's more unpredictable or impactful than anyone can even begin to imagine. Hope you sign up to fight.
1
@Y
I've been watching and it's amazing! We lost because we weren't any good at fighting and our equipment was leftover junk from the Korean War. Bring it on now though- There is nothing wrong with war as long as you are on the winning side. Total war on North Korea and we will be finished in three days- this ain't that big a deal. Stop being such a Pacifist and get in the fight!
You're in a place where finding a safe space is exactly what you'll need to do.
trump and kim are two peas in a pod.
All trump needs to do is invite kim to his Birthday party and give him an extra scoop of ice-cream with his chocolate cake and maybe an extra special party hat like his and they would be best buddies! They have so much in common!
Especially their bizarre hair do's!
2
Par for the course for the Times to grant space to this South Korean joirnalist to condescend to our president and his supporters by lecturing to us that our president's only objective was to appease his "core" when he told Kim Jong Un that his country would be "totally destroyed" - and like the Times, leaves out the part about "if" we have to defend ourselves. And that wasn't his objective, either. He was issuing a warning to North Korea about what would happen if they did dare to attack us. Jong Un and his henchmen needed to hear it, too. And for those of you who think this means we'd nuke North Korea back to the stone age, that's another media spin. We "totally destroyed" North Korea 65 years ago with conventional weapons, and there would be no need to use anything else now. In fact, their threat to shoot down an American plane even now is just short of laughable - and you can bet they're careful not to make good on their silly threats - because the president of the United States already has clearly told them, without leaving any room for misunderstanding, what would happen if they did. So, sleep easy. North Korea won't do anything. They're all talk.
1
All those words, and yet you missed the nugget of the story--that the NK leadership are trying to behave cautiously. But the extra dollop of xenophobia was notable. So what if the journalist is South Korean. Maybe it helps that he or she can read and speak the language of the NK leadership?
3
Sir,
The "South Korean" to whom you refer is a distinguished journalist, author, and scholar. Choe Sang-Hun, I believe, is the long time Seoul bureau chief for The Times. In 2000, he shared a Pulitzer prize for investigative journalism for reporting on the massacre at No Gun-ri during the Korean War. He was a fellow in Korean studies at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center of Stanford University [2010-11]. Mr. Choe knows from whence he speaks, so whether we agree with his point-of-view or not, it behooves us all to respectfully take note of his analysis and that of other thoughtful commentators.
IB
3
The title of this piece, "some see caution", could apply to the USA just as much as North Korea.
This is like watching a little jack terrier barking wildly at a massive pit bull. Both are on leashes and the only thing hurting is our ears. It would be nice if trump stuck to his previous statement of not telling the enemy what his plans are for engagement. He's been baited into a twitter war so both leaders can save face. Spare us the drama!
2
Nuke NK.
Do it for Otto Warmbier.
3
I sure am glad that Trump has finally solved the problem of North Korea's nuclear capabilities. Just think, all it took was a little tough talk that all of Trump's predecessors were afraid of! What a genius he is! I'm sure they've put away their fissionable material and rockets, and they're sorry now.
12
the north korea problem has been pushed down the road as far as it can be pushed one way or the other trump will solve it good or bad
2
The third paragraph from the last made an important point. There is now no "high-level diplomatic contact between Pyongyang and Washington".... It is possible that one side could misread the other side's intentions and lead to nuclear disaster.
In 1971, at the height of the cold war between the US and China, Nixon sent Henry Kissinger as a secret envoy to China. Much was accomplished in talks between Kissinger and Zhou Enlai, and in 1972 Nixon went to China and that country was brought into the world of nations and the possibility of war between us the the Chinese was reduced dramatically.
We need to establish high-level contacts between our country and North Korea, and soon. Nuclear weapons are nasty things, and no amount of tweeting changes that fact.
21
The NYT's readers' comments regarding this article will predictably devolve into a long harangue about Donald Trump's mental state and unhelpful spontaneous tweets - like the NK problem is something he's created in his first few months in office - not something that much more polished U.S. leaders have failed to effectively deal with over the last two decades.
The conventional threat that the NK armed forces has presented to Seoul has always been the cover for the regime to pretty much do whatever they pleased, including seizing a US warship and shooting down a US aircraft in international waters, sinking a SK naval vessel, murder, kid napping, cyber attacks, the list goes on. It was always a brutal calculation that the US would restrain a response to these provocative actions and that the only thing the NK regime fears and respects, the US military, would not be unleashed. The effort to build a long range nuclear missile threat to US allies and even US cities has completely changed this calculus. Kim may be waking up to the fact that maybe, just maybe, DT will unchain the big dog. Kim has overplayed his hand, and this won't end well for him or his criminal regime. In the unlikely even that he agrees to give up his nuclear weapons programs for concessions, it will only be because he thinks that the big dog is coming for him.
5
Nice to see some level of rationality. WaPo reports today that NK can't figure out Trump and seeks channels to communicate with Republican-leaning analysts. They still insist on keeping their nukes. So, the madman approach both sides employ means the risk of nuclear conflict remains tangible. Let's hope Trump's bluster to NK ends like the repeal of ACA - the status quo is confirmed.
1
North Korea is the aggressor here. They've aggressively pursued a nuclear program with the singular intent of reaching the USA with a nuclear missile. They ignored all attempts to lower the flames. They are sending a message, that nothing is going to help. Not China trying to intervene, not the UN Resolutions, nothing. Not 8 years of Obama saying pretty please. He couldn't even manage sanctions. They refused to negotiate or demonstrate any ability to appear capable of responsibly managing a nuclear program. So, to me, unfortunately, it seems more likely that a military option will be the only one left to the USA. It is unacceptable to allow NK to build a nuclear program to bully and threaten the world with and specifically to aim nuclear missiles at us. NK would be doing what, if he shoots down one of our planes in international air space?
5
Correct Liz, spot on.
1
Though shall not suffer a totalitarian state to be - thought no American president when the thinking and the acting on the thought was good and easy.
Also: why have China's concerns about a re-unified Korea allied to the West not been countered by imparting the information that there would be no demilitarised zone at the border with China, that there would be no US troops behind it, and no US military bases in Korea at all, for no need for such would be recognised?
Honestly this regime should have been removed decades ago - but now it's almost impossible isn't? It's a terrible situation.
1
Actions being louder than words, as evidenced by the NFL's kneel to our Flag, you have to wonder what the effect would be if the North Koreans gave it a moon.
I abhor the government in North Korea, their crimes against their own citizens and their murderous unprovoked attacks against South Korea which have happened from time to time over the years. But it worries me that as Mr. Trump increasingly reveals himself to be empty and shallow and despicable, that he won't be able to restrain himself in his ongoing humiliations and frustration from exercising the ultimate power of his office. Truly that will be a dark day for the whole world, and among the survivors, especially for Americans.
3
No need to shoot down the F35's, they'll fall out of the sky on their own accord.
4
Hardly there Stanley.....
This Article could be
About
North Korea
or
America
or
Russia
Substitute where necessary?
We need more accuracy in these reports. Your report states the bombers flew "near" North Koreas east coast. Most of the media is using sloppy words to describe the flights as breathtaking flights. According to the Pentagon, they flew 200 miles off the coast in international air space. This is also outside the range of NK defenses. I would not say 200 miles as "near" the coast.
2
It's very near when you consider how fast jets fly.
1
Torpedoing a South Korean ship, and shelling South Korean islands is...not reckless?
3
North Korea is going to be such an awesome country when it finally joins the free world.
Progress in the Middle East = You can drive, but you still can't show your face.
1
Don't tell me Trump is making Kim look like a fool. The last thing we want to do is embarrass the brash young leader in the eyes of his captive followers. That wouldn't be nice. Shame on us.
1
Remember the Cold War? Khrushchev made bombastic threats, JFK faced him down, calmly, cooly, with military moves when needed (Berlin, Cuba). But Trump seems unable to keep his cool! Time is fast approaching when we need to get rid of him. Say what you will about VP Pence, he's no hothead.
2
Spot on!
1
Kennedy warned Russia any missile launched from Cuba would be deemed an attack on the US and require a full military strike on Russia. Nothing clam about it. A direct threat to nuke Russia.
2
It's not just what you say, but how you say it. Kennedy used almost exactly those words. But Trump is tweeting things like "If Kim believes what you just said, he won't be around for much longer!" North Korea appears to be having difficulty interpreting that, as well as the conflicting messages coming from Trump vs. Mattis and Tillerson.
Essentially, this represents the chaotic way he's run his administration finally spilling over into foreign policy, with potentially disastrous results.
Regarding the B-1 bombers fighter escorts sent north of the DMZ on Friday night, news reports and the DoD say only that they flew further north than any other US flights since North Korea's nuclear program began. Does anyone know how far north? For example, did they (in international air space) fly as far north as the North Korean nuclear test area and missile testing sites? - Was this a simulated attack on those sites, intended to locate North Korean radars and anti-aircraft sites? Was North Korea supposed to think they were under attack? Did they not respond because they knew the "attack" was a feint, because US civilians had not be withdrawn from Seoul? Were the Trump people hoping for an "incident" that would justify a later attack? More investigation, please.
2
North Korea may be paranoid but not crazy. It sees the nukes as a deterrent to an attack.
The only unknown factor in the equation is Trump. Let's hope the generals keep him in check.
1
A few years ago, Kim shelled a South Korean outpost and killed several soldiers, assuming correctly that the U.S. under the prudent command of Obama would never retaliate.
Now the North Korean border personnel is carefully reminded to not act rashly. Quite the difference.
I cant's say that I like Trump's brinkmanship, but reality suggests that it is working rather well on Kim. Maybe it takes a madman to contain one?
6
What would happen if the US guaranteed the security of North Korea with no preconditions? After a few years we could talk to them and say - "See you don't need nukes after all."
This is my favorite approach. A no-first-strike guarantee for NK so long as they uphold the same guarantee for the US, SK, and Japan would ground most of the existing tensions (we would also be smart to push for a freeze when we begin talking, but not mention it as a precondition for talks).
We could follow that with gradual talks to roll back the nuclear program and lift sanctions. Over time, North Korea's threat could be neutralized.
Of course N. Korea is afraid. It is obvious to anyone except the fear-mongers calling for first strikes that no sane person or government would pick a nuclear fight with any of the established powers, certainly not the US. It should also be clear that we do not have first-strike intentions, and except for some of the first-strike scenarios that I am sure the military draws up as What Ifs (same as the Russians) and which are insane, I can't imagine why we ever would strike first unless it was clear that the other side was going to launch.
N. Korea won't ever strike S. Korea or Japan either with nuclear or conventional weapons because they know what would happen immediately.
Even a government as harsh and despicable to their people as N. Korea's is doesn't seriously entertain thoughts of nuclear war. That is terrorist fantasy only, which could happen though if they get a weapon. In the pre-nuclear days, there were leaders willing to wage major wars with major powers (Iraq and Afghanastan don't count because of the imbalance in forces despite the success of guerrilla-style wars). Not now though, not with nuclear weapons cruising around 24/7 underwater and in the air and sitting on multiple hardened missile launch pads. All this is ego-driven bluster with useless tactical threats since they can't be backed up.
Makes Trump and his base feel good though. Not sure what it does for the North Koreans who don't happen to be the ones told to smile and cheer that day.
I have no idea where you are drawing these conclusions, but they're not my conclusions at all.
1
liz: From common sense. The concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has prevented nuclear war for about 65 years between the major powers. N. Korea has a very minimal capability, but even if they improve it, they would not be able to prevent their own destruction if they decided to launch some missiles. So tell me, why would they do that? Please, present your reasoning - I'm interested to hear why you think they would invite their own destruction.
We should very quietly just pull all troops out of South Korea, say nothing, just pull them out. That would drive him nuts thinking we are preparing to Nuke him. Saying nothing is the key, just let him stew.
4
John Doe, Yours is the best idea I've heard to date.
Unfortunately, the weak link in this (I think excellent ) plan would be Donald Trump's BIG MOUTH! "Quiet" is a word missing from Trump's vocabulary.
The only way it could work is if it's done without Trump's knowledge.... Good luck with that!
2
No. Just No. Don't even think it.
If Kim is acting rationally, there is only one scenario where he'll earnestly consider using nuclear weapons.
That is if he thinks the US is about to invade anyway.
The North Korean's in the photo look gaunt.
1
I see thousand of hostages , dont you ?
Our sworn enemies, dial up the pressure and minimize the food for them
Un can bury our faux president across the world by being reasonable, and it looks like he's starting to figure that out.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korea-seeks-help...
'Lobbing nukes' is not a game anyone can win.
1
The NY Times recently reported on North Korea’s use of UDMH as their rocket fuel. Is North Korea obtaining their UDMH from the Khrunichev Space Center in Russia? I’m asking this question since Kim Jong-un’s father visited the facility many years ago. President Putin directs activities at Khrunichev and could easily have them send UDMH to North Korea. Where does the Rocket Man get his rocket fuel? Russia? http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=86 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1475064.stm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/1336557/Kim-ta... https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2017/8/25/9592/?h
3
"Much as Mr Trumps Threats " to “totally destroy” the country — appeals to his core supporters, Mr. Kim needs to demonstrate to his people that he is not backing down from foreign threats, analysts said."
The only difference is Kim seemingly parses his statements carefully , As the article lays out, each statement has a clear exit/alternative behind the noise.
In contrast our fearless leader wanders out with the skill and planning of a 6th grader in the schoolyard at best. "Nah Nah Nah! Your dad is...."
Again the President is outclasssed. At least he can push around Estonia right?
4
kim thinks as long as he has nuclear weapons hes safe if he gives them up whats to stop him from being brought to justice( for crimes against humanity if the reports coming from that part of the world are true) the frightening thing is thats when he would launch one if he thinks he is going to lose power he would as soon be dead but until he launches one its a standoff and he holds on to power as soon as he does he has no more leverage he dont want that no matter what he says, he wont launch first.
N Korea's approach to USA feels analogous to a disturbed neighborhood kid who starts fires. Drops matches in the front yard of Neighbor A. Then lights the mailbox of Neighbor A on fire. Other neighbors, B, C, D see the kid is disturbed but don't know what to do about him. The little arsonist's parents (China) do nothing, shrug their shoulders. After the mailbox is ablaze, all the neighbors begin to worry the kid will really light Neighbor A's house on fire. N Korea keeps throwing matches around and nobody seems to know what to do to make it stop.
1
Well, Duh. The NK leadership is sharp. They know OUR Dear Leader is more CRAZY than theirs. Seriously.
18
Your headline also aptly describes the Trump Administration on North Korea.
3
Donald Trump is the North Korea problem and will probably Tweet us into a war.
3
So now the mature one is the guy in N. Korea? They'll be writing about the Age of Trump for thousands of years.
20
The Age of Trump is 71-going-on-12
2
The 'Age of Trump' as in 5?
The only thing North Korea wants is an unconditional surrender and withdraw of all US forces. This is unacceptable and why a military solution is becoming the only logical choice.
9
What is the military "solution" you propose? I haven't heard of anything that doesn't risk millions of innocent South Korean lives. This is the fact that generations of strategists have confronted, and none of them have seriously contemplated an all-out war with the Kim Family Regime.
2
Sure Nathan, I'll bet you posted your comment right before you went down to the recruiter's office to sign yourself up.
2
give s.k. a few nukes and let them invade thats the only way to not draw china,russia into the conflict s.k. would win easily and if the north knew nukes were on their doorstep wouldnt be so quick to pull the trigger facing precision missiles and s.k. would have the advantage of suprize there is know easy way where nobody dies in any solution s.k. will not fair well, but that might keep the rest of the world from being drawn into a war.
Kim needs an enemy to justify his repression. He cannot start a war (suicide) but he also cannot make peace (his people would lynch him a la Ceaucescou) so he has to keep up this crazy brinkmanship. He knows the rules. I am not sure Trump does. There will, one day, be a disaster, most likely to do with regime change. I suspect his half brother was murdered to prevent the Chinese backing a coup with his brother as the public face. The US should keep quiet: keep a strong presence in South Korea... but just not engage with the craziness
28
“They can’t fight a war with the Americans when their fighter jets don’t even fly far because of lack of fuel and fear of crashing.”
Bingo.
With hysterical, nonsensical pronouncements that bear no relation to reality, the North Koreans have managed to scare the American public, the UN, the community of civilized nations.
The result: concessions and capitulation.
Enough is enough. North Korean leaders are terrified of US military power. The US can destroy the North Korean regime handily and in short order.
As of now, North Korea does not / not have the means of hitting the US with nuclear weapons.
The US should act militarily to make sure it stays that way. I predict that the North Koreans will not so much as fire a single bullet in response to a US military strike on their missile and nuclear weapons facilities. Kim Jong UN knows that if he retaliates against South Korea or Japan, the US will crush him and his regime like termites.
Its time the US started acting like the global power that it is.
11
You make it sound easy don't you. Handily and in short order like Iraq? The N Koreans are prepared to fight to the death and believe their leader is a God. Seoul will be a mess and thousands will die. I guess China will sit by while we take over the peninsula?
2
willing to take the shot, eh? and the law of unintended consequences--w/ our recent past SCREAMING at us to show discretion--matters not, right? ~25 million people live seoul. you willing to underwrite your martial ardor w/ their blood, correct?
3
Here is the courage of someone who does not have the bear the actual costs and risks of a war with North Korea.
2
In any event, if Kim pressed the issue, the Chinese would certainly squash the NoK's efforts.
2
This article is off the mark regarding North Korea: the Pyongyang regime is many things but it's neither stupid nor suicidal. They know what any attack on the US or its allies would mean for them: immediate and complete incineration of the country.
What North Korea wants is a credible deterrent in the face of the constant American threat looming right at their doorstep. And who can blame them, except those among us – and there are many – who are so self-righteous that they are unable to put themselves in anybody else's shoes for just a moment?
Here are a few questions I never see addressed:
Why would North Korea not have the right to have nukes when the Greatest- Country-On-The-Face-Of-The-Earth has enough WMD to vaporize the planet several times over?
Why would Kim Jong-un not want to protect himself after what happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi?
And what are our bases, soldiers and bombers doing in that part of the world in the first place?
Ok, I got it: We are the good guys. They are the bad guys.
18
"We are the good guys. They are the bad guys."
That is correct. Thank you for stating it so succinctly
Correct. We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. Ask any of the few refugees who managed to escape from North Korea.
1
This is a transcendental issue. WE are ok, they are not.
We can believe what this column says, sit back, do nothing, and hope. When he can, Kim will either incinerate a few American cities, or he won't. Some of you clearly see this as the "reasonable" choice. You don't seem to care that you are gambling with millions of American lives.
Or we can remove his ability to do this before he has the means to hit us with atomic missiles. No American lives are at risk this way. Some Koreans will die, but that is their risk. Not ours.
That sounds better to me. But I love my grandchildren. I don't want them to die.
You must be different.
Are you, really?
5
Why are you so sure that no American lives are at risk if we push a conflict at this point in time? That was likely the case on January 20. Since then, they have tested an ICBM and a thermonuclear warhead, and we've let them continue past those milestones. If we had plans to strike them, it was obviously a huge mistake deferring them beyond the July 4 and September 3 tests.
On this subject, I'm glad to listen to the words of anyone who, like Mr. Choe, has walked the streets of Seoul. And uninterested in the opinions of anyone who has not. If you don't understand this prejudice of mine, you should educate yourself. Or just stop and think for a minute or two--you're probably already aware of the relevant facts.
1
On the state subject of the unilateral annihilation of America in the hands of Kim I am more interested in the opinions of those walking American streets. But that is me. Not that I believe street walking is a preferred form of knowledge.
To each his own.
2
“The North Koreans know how to choose their words,” said Cheon Seong-whun, a visiting research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul.
Who are they choosing their words for? Do they realize that their exquisitely chosen words are going to a man who can't handle more than a 2/3 page memo. Who can fully express whatever passes for his thoughts in 2 or 3 tweets?
22
Donald trump use the world a israel man write.
And there is ongly war and other people who is rither who they want to kill
Everyone around the world can sleep comfortably at night knowing that two man-children with nuclear weapons are trading juvenile insults at each other.
3
Choe Sang-Hun, clearly Korean although the Times does not identify him in any way - I wonder why; for whom is he speaking - gives us a picture of a sensible, calm, trustworthy Kim. Hun gives us every reason to just trust Kim's rational leadership and do nothing. He won't bomb us even when he can.
Or maybe he will. We are gambling with the lives of millions of Americans this way. And then later, the lives of the North Koreans.
On the other hand, if we act now, while he is still unable to hit us because he does not yet have the means, we risk no Americans. It will unfortunately kill some Koreans, but end his danger to us.
Which way is rational to us? I find it is the latter, but I love my grandchildren.
For those of you who choose the former, maybe you don't.
3
Experts believe that Kim is rational because they've watched Kim and come to the conclusion that, though reckless, he has been acting within the bounds of self-preservation. He's threatened Guam - and backed off. He's flown a missile over Japan - over the least populated point he could in order to test on a ballistic trajectory. And all of his bellicose threats begin with "if".
This is someone whom MAD would likely work on - but only if we play it. If we instead back North Korea into a corner, we'll create a situation where there is no penalty for launching nukes because we will destroy them either way. That's the only scenario where someone with an interest in self-preservation might shoot them off.
Knowing this, since you have a family and want to see them safe, I would watch the situation closely and arrange for the family to be somewhere outside of the US when military action begins. The chance of any one area of the US being struck by a missile is small, but North Korea is likely to already have the capacity to strike at least part of the US with a thermonuclear warhead, after their July 4 ICBM test and their Sep 3 nuclear test. Even if they do not have the capacity, you can be assured that they will at least try if their back is to the wall.
At least both sides are talking about preemptive strikes now. No sight for denuclearization for sure, a step NK wants everyone to forget. Are we playing the tune of NK?
Choe consistently reports on how despite all the evidence things are not what they seem with Kim and the US should just play along and, more politely. Then, magic.
If Choe has the way out he should stop all reporting and share it with the world.
Alas. He reports not what is but what he wants. And if the US is at risk of annhilation, too bad. So what. I see it different and I know what Kim is saying and what China is doing and that young untrained Americans suffered casualties over eighty percent saving South Korea and have regularly died since at North Korean hands while giving cover that led to a civil society that allowed Choe and a human rights lawyer to rise while China gives feudal dictators the cover for Kim to rise.
Basta. Basta, Basta.
3
From the article: North Korea is anxious to avoid a war it can’t win, analysts say, and is careful to leave itself a rhetorical way out of its threats.
Who would win a nuclear war?
Should we go into war with N. Korea, are we gonna be the winner?
As if dealing with Trumps idiocies is not enough, now we have to listen these kinds of analyses.
The rhetorics used by Kim and Trump are very insulting to any human being on the earth. Trump will kill tens of millions people on the Korean Peninsula? Kim will drop H-bomb on American soil? These two so-called leaders have no shame. The rhetorics prove how disrespectful these two are to the lives of humans.
1
In the cover photo of this article, I see a huge crowd of ... victims. Victims of a cruel regime peopled by psychopaths. Behind the crowd is an image of what they have been taught faces them: a soldier, sounding a trumpet, a call to War. They're doing what they've been taught to do: holding out a clenched fist.
Even though, for various political reasons, we might not see the removal of these cruel leaders anytime soon, the world community must now very clearly see what these evil men are actually made of. They truly are a threat to world peace in every direction that a ballistic missile can be fired.
Without now seeking a regime change, and without territorial ambitions, the world community should not simply put its head back under the bush when, as is now inevitable, North Korea's leaders back down from their present bellicose stance. Because, as President Trump himself said, "this has been going on for a long time."
China, in a very real sense, is the country that started this mess, back when it tried to invade and take over the Korean peninsula. China should be made to meaningfully address what is truly their problem. It should never have been necessary for the US President to speak so bluntly. But, this situation should never have been allowed to fester for so long, a gangrenous sore.
12
China's invasion of the Korean peninsula occurred only after the invading forces from the south neared their border.
You have it hit the bulls-eye.
China is the bad guy here.
Although I appreciate this news that NK may not be seeking a war against the US, I somewhat cringe at the tone of this article as almost daring NK to make further provocative moves. We all want to encourage an environment where both sides can backtrack on the threats, quietly bring down their fists, without losing face.
With an GDP of 28 billion, North Korea is sorely outmatched. Thats 12% of our military budget. Kim understands the US has its hands tied in dealing with his nation, because any pre-emptive strike would make us look bad. The best the US can do is simply destroy any atmospheric nuclear attempts. The bluster is to make his brainwashed people believe they are moving ahead in the world. NK would be wiped off the map in under a week if the US put together a serious strike.
20
Usa people is brain washed and stupid.
Who believe to get good life in usa?
99% of economi controlled of israel and the rest of money is loan to china. Time to pay back the money and go home from asia.
350milion slaves is usa who have to do what israel poeple say other way they become punnished och inprison.
200million people live in poor life.
Usa is the wolrds hell,
And I sincerely hope that's the plan.
Enough of this cat and mouse nonsense.
That is exactly what many said at the start of the Korean War. It is never over in a week when you go nuclear...it is just beginning.
If China is angry with the war of words, it would help if China hosted a summit between the US and North Korea so that the two could understand the other position. All educated social scientists know that Kim only wants his family to stay in power. Trump does not understand this reality. Trump's advisers and China need to work to make this clear to Trump.
18
No way!
What Beijing must do, if it believes its own propaganda about this being China's century of world leadership, is actually to show some -- by squelching Kim's stupidly aggressive remarks, which the Chinese "leaders" could do.
But they either don't want to (my suspicion), or are incapable of rising to their own opinion of themselves.
But we know one thing for sure. Beijing is really, really good at censoring their own population and trying every which way to keep their one-party rule in place.
China is in favor of talks occurring again as is Russia and S. Korea but Xi has no (known) contact with Kim. As The Times recently reported:
"Mr. Xi has displayed contempt for Mr. Kim, who is half his age and whom he has never met. His new envoy for North Korean negotiations, Kong Xuanyou, cannot go to Pyongyang because the North Koreans will not let him."
Its in America and N.K. hands and both have reasons to delay talks at this time.
The reality is that the United States military could quickly destroy the North Korean military if we wanted to … and are willing to accept the unpredictable consequences in terms of loss of life and infrastructure in both Koreas, not to mention continued erosion of our moral authority. I can think of only one leader who could be tempted to find out, and he doesn't live in Korea.
25
Good.
Once China stops playing 1950s games this drama will end in a month. The US has zero interest in invading North Korea.
If China does not stop playing 1950s games as prelude to the new Cold War Xi is launching, soon millions will probably be dead and people will use this as an excuse to redouble their thoughtless prejudices.
If China believes Trump will take out Kim China will probably act. For now it believes it won't face this risk so it will continue to use North Korea to get rid of the US in Asia and teach the world the Middle Kingdon now rules all around it as it is entitled to.
Many of us are behind our president to do just that.
North Korea (and this family) has been following this path for decades; agreeing to nuclear non-proliferation then breaking their word, over and over. Each time, the UN draws a line in the sand and they cross it, and the world does nothing beyond economic sanctions. Now the north tests ever larger nuclear weapons and missiles, and the little dictator bounces around, ranting and threatening.
Finally, I think even China is tired of it. China was once afraid of the US, and liked the North Korea buffer, but now China is an economic powerhouse, making its mark in the world through commerce, and we are their largest customer. And this little brat is stirring that up. I do hope military confrontation is avoided, and that China will step in hard to lower the hammer on Kim Jong-Un. We don't want any part of an overthrow, as then we would be in another Iraq mess. I believe it was Colin Powell that rightly advised against this, saying "you break it, you fix it"...or words to that effect.
7
Let's keep in mind what N. Korea really wants- certainly not a war with the U.S. I mean what would be their objectives in such a conflict?
North Korea's true goal is South Korea, and there is reason to believe that Kim will get it. He is already in a position to level Soul within twenty minutes of giving the order. Once he proves his nuclear capacity he will test the will of the American people to defend South Korea in the face of a spiteful nuclear strike. His goal is simply to make the US decide to sit out the war of conquest he has planned for the South.
And you know what- he might be right. As much as Trump's base loves to hear him cat-call international leaders, how many of them would be willing to suffer a nuclear explosion on the mainland in order to defend South Korea.
28
America is going go along with aggression against South Korea, after the first Korean War and all of these years of defending South Korea?
I would be very surprised,
Trump is warning NK he would destroy NK in such an event,
and I take it literally.
Spot on!
I agree with your assassment. I find it truly incredible that the Seoul government thinks Mr. Kim is just spouting rhetoric. I have served in the military in Korea, and I bellieve that much of their population feels it is the responsibility of the US to protect them from the North. Once Mr. Kim removes the US from the equation with a nuclear threat to the US, Samsung will be relocated to Pyongyang.
At the same time, NK is becoming more lethal all the time, and the risks are building with time.Our policies, frankly, have not worked.
time is not on our side, as with Japan and Germany in the 1930s, until Japan finally attacked Pearl Harbor and German declared war on the USA in December 1941.
By which time, Japan and Germany had become highly lethal and formidable foes, resulting in an enormous loss of life and limb in WWII.
4
While North Korea prepares for war, we patiently wait until they have the means to fight us. Is this logical? Do we risk our very country by failing to act now when we have overwhelming military superiority? Could a first strike be considered an ethical choice when our enemy is an insane dictator bent on destroying us?
5
And bear in mind that this is probably how they see us; and given the total destruction of NK once before, it may not be an unreasonable point of view.
3
A big problem with a preemptive strike against N. Korea is that Seoul is vulnerable to their artillery. Millions of South Koreans could die if we attack North Korea.
Time won't necessarily make North Korea more able to fight us. The sanctions are surely having a big effect.
1
I am presuming that you are referring to an "insane dictator" as being the pretender in the white house....
2
The DPRK is a totalitarian regime. The people think and want what the leader thinks and wants. The preservation of their country is not as important as the preservation of the movement that in the mind of the leader is to struggle for a unified Korea. Kim does not care that might be a burning cinder glowing in the dark. Trump is giving him everything he wants, and that does not include peace.
2
Research is being ignored by the DOD! How can we be so ignorant as to use copper as hertz protection against an EMP bombs when graphing is proven more effective, cheaper, and lighter? Ignorance in the United States and North Korea will probably end up hurting people, by mistake, that are not even involved! Love is better than hate but requires brains to use it right. The right EMP, at their launch site, could fry their electronics but not heard a single human.
Very convincing argument. Thanks.
>Ri Yong-ho, declared that Pyongyang had the right to shoot down American bombers even if they were outside its airspace
Japan has a right to shoot ICBMs and any other missile across the NK airspace. It is how you engage your neighbors and their allies.
7
True, there might be "no winners from rashly triggering war on the peninsula" - in the short term.
There were certainly no winners or losers on D-Day, either. But a year after the U.S. invasion of Nazi-occupied France, there were both.
17
There are 23 million people in the Seoul metropolitan area under the guns of North Korea's conventional artillery of which there are thousands of tubes, so no, the WW2 analogy does not apply.
5
Um, there were no nuclear weapons at D-Day, either. Seoul alone as about 10 million souls. Sadly our President seems to share your cavalier attitude toward their fate.
4
US involvement in the European theater was an opportunistic cameo appearance at best. Hitler was in retreat well over a year before your precious D-Day.
I find the whole idea of a North Korea even 'existing', to be utterly fascinating. And while I'd never ever consider trying to 'visit', I'd love to be a fly on the wall. Take this photo of the North Koreans 'protesting for example. Most of the faces look rather 'calm', and in some instances expressionless, for people who are supposed to be 'protesting'. Then there is the fact that all arms are raised in a very similar manner, and at more or less the same height, with fists clenched in a similar way. Fascinating, how completely robotic and brainwashed these people are. Sad for them of course.... and very dangerous for anyone who crosses them, for they would clearly do whatever their leader were to ask of them, unflinchingly.
13
Yes, nice of them to let them wear clothes and clean up before the photo was taken.
This isn't really a protest but a rally that isn't optional, which might explain some of the drawn or expressionless faces. I think far from being "completely robotic", these North Koreans are just as human as we are. Even in a totalitarian regime, people are still people, with their own fears, hopes, and dreams, and not the "unflinching" masses your comment suggests they are.
"Fascinating, how completely robotic and brainwashed these people are. Sad for them of course.... and very dangerous for anyone who crosses them, for they would clearly do whatever their leader were to ask of them, unflinchingly."
Certainly you must have wrote this tongue-in-cheek, because it applies completely to Trump supporters as well.
2
China, South Korea and Japan really do not want to starve the people of North Korea with ever greater sanctions. It's not their fault they have a reactionary dynastic autocrat as leader. We can't torture our way to peace.
But in a contest between Kim and Donald, Kim is the better student of history. If Donald would only shut up, there is no harm in talking.
31
No harm in talking, no harm in making promises, no harm in assistance in these 3 decades.
And this nuclear crisis today, and more severe ones in tomorrow.
Willing to bet that Trump's handlers are deliberately steering him to rant over the NHL in order to shut him up over threatening North Korea
50
I wish we could say the same about our President!
8
It is totally unbecoming of a US president to lower himself to the muck, the level of a deranged leader of a country, North Korea, who is exhibiting nothing more than the 'roaring of a mouse'.
And yet, trump has his plate full of critical issues to deal with such as the hurricane damages done to Florida, Puerto Rico and Houston; cannot get the GOP to come up with a health care plan that is an improvement over the ACA; how to deal with the nuclear agreement with Iran; how to resolve trade wars...
All he does is like a middle school bully, harangue at Kim Jong Un, stir up the pot to antagonize the NFL, all its players and managers...
How much more this infantile behavior can the country tolerate?
84
agree, with the exception of US pres "lowering" himself to the muck. He is and always has been...the muck.
4
The real question is much more of this infantile behavior can the Republicans tolerate?
The only ones who do matter are the Republicans as they control both houses of Congress. Unless and until they do something we cannot free ourselves of Trump. Right now, they refuse to do anything. Perhaps, with proof of collusion with the Russians or some other actual crime being revealed the Republicans will stir themselves. But considering their behavior for the last 8 years I don't hold much hope they would do the right thing for the country.
9
You are simply parroting propaganda you hear on the liberal media. If you stop your political bias and look at the facts you will change your mind.
There are reasons people like this are called 'loose cannons'. I trust neither of these lunatics.
30
They are a coiled snake. They are simply warning us not to strike. It is US who need to listen, and simply stay away from them.
As the Russian Investigation increases, so will the Trump war footing. They are intimately connected.
78
That's precisely why they are betting the farm on the nuke and ICBM. They only need to make sure that at least one nuke will survive in case of American strike. That's their only insurance and they'd be a fool to give that up. Especially when the US is about to renege on the previous nuke deal with Iran.
22
Iran has legitimate concerns. Pakistan and Israel have nukes, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are armed to the teeth. Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are spiraling chaotic messes.
NK is just reckless. China is their ally, physically next to them, having immense logistical support. Japan, an historical enemy, has chosen not to pursue nuclear weapons and has no offensive military. The US has removed nuclear weapons from South Korea decades ago.
Instead NK leadership is paranoid, obsessed and mentally unstable. Kidnapping Japanese citizens in order to acquire language teachers is close to an act of war. Shooting ICBMs across Japan is an act of war. The list of attacks on South Korea is quite long, along with NK's secret military tunnels into South Korea. The recent chemical weapon attack on the boy-leader's half brother in Malaysia who was operating under Chinese protection, was notable. They cyberwarfare and e-bank robberies are well known.
5
This goes for both the US and North Korea: playing with fire risks getting burned. And neither nation's president is cooling down the rhetoric. "Fire and fury" or "sea of fire" can go from words to living nightmares.
5