How should President Obama handle N. Korea's test firings?

This is on his plate, and he can't ignore it. What should he do? Press for more U.N. sanctions? offer financial incentives for ceasing this activity? I haven't a clue as to what he should do or practically can do, but I do understand that he doesn't have the option of doing nothing. Could he start by convening a meeting with China, Japan, S.Korea and the U.S? What would the goal of such a meeting be?

I'd take back everything given to NK over the past ten or twenty years. NO financial help whatsoever. I don't know how to protect the people of NK and facilitate the country's implosion at the same time.

And no, I am most certainly NOT advocating any such thing. It seems like, in many ways, he is the state of N. Korea. And how much longer can the guy last? His sons don't seem to possess the smarts he does. There has been a stream of reports claiming that he's suffered one or more strokes over the last year or so. Perhaps his death will bring positive change.

in someone more unstable. Not being as smart, but maybe just as crazy would be a dangerous combo.

Seeing him go could be an opportunity to change the dialog and restart efforts. But, if I were Obama I'd be done with Lil' Kim. He can't be trusted. I'd take everything off the table.

So little is known about NK's political structure, we have no idea what Kim has set up in case of his death.

And for all we know, Kim is a moderating voice and his absence might cause worse problems.

the citizens of that country.

in the face by Kim Jong-Il? Sometimes there is no good choice.

:shrug:

The present course has clearly failed. By the way, nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable government is more than just a political slap in the face.

Economic sanctions didn't work on Saddam either. All it did was starve Iraqis, not the dictator. We should have learned that lesson with the Cubans years ago. It didn't topple Fidel Castro, yet the people are still impoverished because of the embargo.

If you're all for continuing to pay them off, come right out and say it.

North Korea is already under economic sanctions. It hasn't worked. What do you honestly propose? Cut off 100% of all food and medicine to that country? Is that what you propose?

I firmly believe it would not take long until the North Korean leadership came to their senses. As of right now all we are doing is killing North Korea's population slowly by perpetuating a homicidal dictatorship.

Is that what you are saying? I want you to repeat what you just said because I'm just making sure I understand what exactly you are proposing. Because if you do that and North Korea's regime holds out for several years subsisting on its stockpile of canned food and grain before folding, what do you say about all those dead bodies and human skeletons that emerged over the course of those several years? That it was a necessary cost?

will not have any impact on those in power.

They will also realize in a rapid way that their old tactic of blackmailing the world doesn't work anymore.

They can function just find with out international aid. It is the people that suffer.

The fact is that two Koreas is good for South Korea's economy and thus the one Korea thing is out of favor these days.

That's nice to the 20+ million trapped there.

For all we know the next guy could be Deng Xiaoping or he could be sympathetic to the crazy military hard-liners. What I do know is that we're not going to coerce North Korea into opening up. They are going to have to make that decision on their own.

Edit: I would add that weakening relations with China might encourage them to do so. Nixon visited China when Sino-Soviet relations were at their lowest point.

Encourage whomever we would prefer to see. I don't think encouraging the side advocating a bunker mentality will work much for us. If we give that side an enemy to rally people against, then they will.

really? Are we the supreme ruler of the world? All I think I know for sure is if I was their leader I'd want to have as many nuclear weapons as I could get, what with a rogue state like the USA running around causing hate and discontent like we are and all. But seriously what can we do except kill a bunch of the north Koreans by way of war or sanctions

It's really really annoying.

To suggest that we are a rogue state is ludicrous.

I hope to annoy you some more:hi::-)

It's become quite popular amongst the far left, which I am a member of, to take this stance that the US is just as bad as many totalitarian countries in the world. But it's a dumb stance without any evidence to support it.

The US has done horrible things. But it in no way compares to many other countries in the world, especially N. Korea. Do a little research and you'll understand.

like yourself telling me to straighten up and fly right, right being what you yourself think. Yes, assholes are like opinions, we all have one. :-)

In fact very few are right. And your opinion is not correct.

everyone has a vested interest in their actions.

And this has nothing to do with being "the supreme ruler" of the world. The U.S. has a long standing defense pact with S. Korea and one with Japan. N. Korea's leader is a meglomaniac who's inflicted horrendous suffering on the citizens of his country and whose interest in nukes far predates bushco. And not the U.S. is not a rogue state. It's not considered a rogue state by any world entity or officially by any nation. you can claim it is until the cows meander on home, but in the reality based world, the world in which we operate, N. Korea is the "rogue state"- not that I consider that a particularly useful tag.

There are already sanctions (U.N.) against N. Korea, and you're right, they haven't accomplished their goal. As I said I don't know what Obama can do, but I do understand he doesn't have the option of doing nothing. Btw, both Russia and China have made strong statements against the tests by N. Korea.

I hate it when people talk about the actions of dictatorships as though they are representative of the will of the people.

If we weren't occupying so many countries right now, I'd suggest immediate invasion and overthrow of the government.

I believe that is effective because it wouldn't create the same type of power vacuum that is seen in Iraq. There aren't equally insane sects fighting for power in N. Korea. Liberation would hopefully allow an oppressed majority to take control again.

In a perfect world, the UN would be strong enough to do this job for the US.

Just like they did in the last Korean conflict? Yeah, let's invade, so we can get our asses kicked, again.

This wouldn't be gorilla warfare. It would be a normal war.

And we destroy entire countries in those situations. China and N. Korea wouldn't stand a chance.

I like not being dead, thank you.

And I certainly hope it's not gorilla warfare. The feces flinging alone would be a mess.

and :rofl:

Sid

Eisenhower had to negotiate a settlement after the Chinese drove us back down the peninsula. Maybe you are not familiar with the phrase forgotten war and why we wanted to forget. It was a conventional conflict and we didn't win.

I mean, the US and the communists ended up splitting Korea 50/50, right? And it was one side wanting to have it all, then the other side wanting to have it all.

I'm not making any moral judgment, just looking at the results.

That will be a very messy situation and it probaly wouldn't be as easy to overthrow Kim as it was when it came to Saddam. Also I wouldn't want to risk my friends being wiped out in such a combat, my grandfather who was held back from deploying in the Army back in the Korean War. His entire unit was wiped out. Technology and strategies has changed but it wouldn't be a simple or normal war that won't be easy. We're still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't we? Besides we are not the world's policemen, they are other and worse dictators out there.

There is no other country or group willing to do the dirty work.

I never said that a second Korean War would be bloodless. People are going to die. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. War is violent.

I also said that IF we weren't already fighting in multiple countries we should invade NK. We are stretched too thin now to invade another country.

we are still fighting them. North Korea will be much uglier and longer. And if my grandfather actually did serve in his unit in the Korean War I wouldn't be alive. If it wasn't for the Iraq War my friend Bowman would still be alive. I don't suggest war as an option then dismiss the consequences as hey, that's what war is all about. During the 20th and now 21st century we've had 167-188 million humans died as a result of war, the point is we may accomplish what we want but the cost will be deadly and lead to a bunch of widows and orphans.

Because even if we don't fight, the enemy will. Being a pacifist will allow wrong doers to walk all over you and eventually kill you.

Yes war comes at the cost of human life. But the point is that the loss of life during war is less than the loss of life and human dignity if there was no war.

If we continue to allow NK to develop nuclear weapons, the entire free world is at risk of attack and many thousands will die.

I am not writing off causalities of war as some sort of mild cost. It is the great cost of war. But it is worth it as long as the war is justified.

But it hasn't happened. I'm not in favor of reliving the Bush doctrine. We already have nuclear weapons and we are the only country that used them on an enemy vaporizing thousands. Also many other countries have nuclear weapons and we're all very much a threat to use them and starting wars is not a very good option to prevent them from using a nuclear weapon.

I'm really, really tired of fighting wars based on 'threats' or 'fears'. I don't mind finding options to disarm N. Korea as long as we are taking the same approach with other countries as well as ourselves but war in this situation is not my choice.

Don't let the lies of the Bush administration make all war seem unjustified.

An imminent threat of attack is a qualification for war. We know that NK has threatened free nations before and they now are testing nuclear weapons. That is posing an imminent threat.

What I mean by Bush doctrine is pre-emptive strike. We become the threat if we attack first. Besides we tested nukes before so has other countries and the test wasn't meant as a threat. The background is North Korea recieved alot of flak for launching a satellite so based on the shit they recieved they said we are now going to do a Nuke test. I know that is a 12 year old response but that is the background behind the test, I know this because I posted the article 3 weeks ago. I even knew they we were going to do this test. They warned officials in Washington and Beijing and other places an hour before the test.

Anyways you will never get me onboard in regards to conducting pre-emptive strikes because with that we actually become the threat.

that obliges us to come to their defense if they're attacked? I oppose war as well, and want to see engagement on some level with N. Korea, but if N. Korea attacks Japan or S. Korea, we're in it.

US occupation of the entire Korean peninsula would mean that there would be US military bases right on the borders of both China and Russia in East Asia. That is 100% unacceptable to both countries. It would never happen.

Neither China or Russia have much power to accomplish military action against the US. They know that we would crush them both.

Also, just an FYI it wouldn't be an occupation of the entire Korean peninsula. We would be getting support from S. Korea and invading N. Korea.

Any war between the US and China/Russia would wipe out all life in all three countries, and likely the rest of the world as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/13/asia_letter/main1798656.shtml

Yet, maybe it’s understandable. North Korea has forged ahead with shorter range missiles that can easily hit Japan. In fact, this is a blood feud…and it goes back almost a century.

Korea was one of Japan’s first conquests as Japan began building its Imperial Empire. Korea became a Japanese colony in 1910. It was a harsh, unforgiving military rule. During World War II, Koreans were turned into slave laborers and brought to Japan to keep factories humming as Japanese men were sent to the front.

...with Japan the likely target leaving them out is like trying to solve the Mideast problems without Israel at the table. It's hard to reach an understanding with just one side setting the terms.

It's possible, and is something that can be looked into though. It'll be a tough sell to Japan though. It's possible that Japan would let us act as a proxy, though again it's a tough sell.

One difference from my analogy above is that Japan doesn't hold the political sway over us that Israel does, so a political snub from us (to a point) may be the lesser price to pay.

We could also secretly play good cop bad cop against NK with Japan in one of the roles and the US in the other. I would think this has already been going on in some milder form all along anyways, but if so it could be stepped up in intensity.

In the end I truly think Kim just wants to be part of the world's elite and treated as an equal, and nuclear weapons are the ultimate equalizer on the world stage. Instant access to the big boys club.

The trouble is that he's batshit crazy or crazy like a fox, and no one seems to know for sure which one it is.

The sooner he's gone the better. Apparently he's picked his 3rd son as successor. What that means for NK or the area, I haven't a clue - but it seems that anyone would be a change for the better.

And I would like to think even Kim understands any attack on SK or Japan would be disastrous. :shrug:

And there never will be. Just a bunch of "tests" so that we keep paying him off.

Perhaps we should support those in range to set up a defense.

First thing I'd do is call up Kim or whomever is in charge in Pyongyang. I'd tell them to look right off their coast...raise a Trident Sub with multiple warheads to the surface and dare them to try it again. Then I'd swagger off like John Wayne.

North Korea is more of a menace, drain and embarassment to China than it is to us. They sit on the border with a situation not unlike ours with Mexico...North Koreans fleeing and becoming a drain on the local economy. Also any nuke accident in North Korea will blow across their border before anyone elses. If anyone should put the screws to Pyongyang, and can, it's Beijing.

In short, the U.S. has little influence over what goes on inside North Korea other than to incite. A reaction is what the North Koreans want...ignore them and quitely put the squeeze through diplomatic contacts. It's the countries in that region...China, Russia, Japan, South Korea...that have the real concern here.

North Korea tests something, we convene some kind of talks and agree to pay them to stop doing whatever they were doing and then they stop for a little while and then start again and we repeat the process over again. It has kept the peace thus far and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to do the same.

I nearly thought your post was satire.

Yes paying him off is not as glamorous of a solution as going in there and kicking ass and taking names. But it's a much better outcome for everybody than starting a war. I think Iraq proved that...

..... cut off the head of the regime.

1. Verify that the underground test was, in fact, nuclear, and that these missiles are a legitimate danger
2. Send no signals publically at all. Ignore it, for the present moment. Don't make fun of it, or validate it either way. Don't express fear of North Korea.
3. Via private back channels--if the threat is legit--make known which sanctions and punishments will be forthcoming if this nuclear threat continues.

This could include financial sanctions. I would be inclined to freeze all the accounts to the leadership of N. K. No money flows.

The fear is that this is a nation that may feel it has nothing to lose. Whenever you are dealing with a nation like this, it's best to focus on penalizing the extreme top tier of the leadership itself, because this the only group of people who have something to lose.

This situation is prickly, to say the least. I would not want to be in the shoes of either Obama or Clinton at this point. It is fragile.

Kick and rec.

so why bother? Everytime NK does something like this, it seems like a calculated blackmail ploy.
The guy is loony, so why not try and get him spinning faster. Doing nothing might be the easiest way. He wants to be relevent, so treat him as irrelevent.

And withdraw all US troops from the Korean peninsula.

though I do think withdrawing our troops from Korea is a good move.

It is called changing directions, towards a peaceful world.

station this morning, nuke'em was the most popular response..To the right wingers a few million civilian casualties don't matter just nuke'em.

if N. Korea does attack S. Korea or a S. Korean, Japanese or American asset, we're in deep shit. That's what N. Korea is threatening. I don't know what he should do- more aid, more sanctions, engagement on a one to one basis, engagement on a polynation basis- but I do know that he doesn't have the option of ignoring it.

They'll clean N Korea's clock. This isn't our problem.

The only way to deal with a crazy dog is to talk with its owner. The crazy dog will never listen to us.

I feel that President Obama should begin immediately to peacefully engage Kim Jong Il in diplomatic negotiations designed to understand better North Korea's grievances.

Such talks should not be held in an air of hostility nor accusation, but rather as an honest attempt to work things out.

I feel that inviting Kim Jong Il to visit Washington would be a GREAT first step.