North Korea (Superthread)

[Nemo888]

Sure. We can play that game if you wish.

Stability is great when one wants the economy to work well.

Yes, Japan is screwing us. They spend a metric shyte ton more on defence than Canada does and they are screwing us.

0.8% of GDP ? Really?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html

We are 126 in defence spending. Japan is 149.

You don't seem knowledgeable or open minded enough to waste time on.

 

[bdave]

Sure.

Do what ?

Whos going to do it ?

No one has the desire to invade the place and be responsible for sorting that mess out. China has no desire to share a border with a large US presence. The South has everything to lose if a war was to break out.

Status quo, with all the occasional sabre rattling, works for everyone. Nothing's happenning anytime soon.

Hit them fast and hard?
Would we be able to attack without causing thousands and thousands of civilian deaths?

 

[FoverF]

0.8% of GDP ? Really?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html

We are 126 in defence spending. Japan is 149.

You don't seem knowledgeable or open minded enough to waste time on.

Ummmm...

Japan spends much more money on their military than we do. They are also in the process of building a PAC-3 -based missile defence system to protect largely against NK missiles.

We contribute essentially nothing to east asian security.

Oh, and in case you forgot, Japan basically paid for pretty much all of Desert Storm/Shield.

I don't get why you think 'we' are somehow getting ripped off? How much money do you think  Canada is contributing to the defence of est asia against North Korean aggression? How the heck do you think 'we' are getting screwed into paying for Japan and Korea's defence?

 

[Jager]

0.8% of GDP ? Really?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html

We are 126 in defence spending. Japan is 149.

You don't seem knowledgeable or open minded enough to waste time on.

Just because your comment sparked my interest:

Japan
Defense Budget 0.8% of GDP (2006)
Annual GDP $4.15 trillion (2009 est.)
So, lets say the Defense budget is still 0.8% of the GDP approximately 3.32 Billion (give or take)
Now for the actual Budget: Revenues: 1.756 Trillion, expenditures: 2.145 Trillion (2009 est.) , so approximately 0.16% of what the government actually spends goes into Defense spending.

Canada
Defense Budget 1.1% of GDP (2005 est.)
Annual GDP $1.279 trillion (2009 est.)
So, lets say the Defense budget is still 1.1% of the GDP approximately 14.068 Billion(give or take)

Now for the actual Budget: Revenues: 521.6 Billion, :expenditures: $578.7 billion (2009 est.). So approximately 2.44% of what the government actually spends goes into Defense spending

I'm not 100% sure that my math is perfect but I think my rough calculations using the site listed in my quote these are the numbers. As that site doesn't take into consideration a lot of things, I'm not sure that its an accurate picture

As for the comment about CDN Aviator not being open minded enough, I believe that the personal attack was not warranted.

<snip>
Stability is great when one wants the economy to work well.
<snip>

CDN Aviator is correct when he states that "Stability is great when one wants the economy to work well", a standing military in peace time is important, just as a military is important in war time, but for different reasons. Without a military, most country's (not all though) would be walked all over, loose the ability to control their own national interests, etc

Ummmm...

Japan spends much more money on their military than we do. They are also in the process of building a PAC-3 -based missile defence system to protect largely against NK missiles.

We contribute essentially nothing to east asian security.

Oh, and in case you forgot, Japan basically paid for pretty much all of Desert Storm/Shield.

I don't get why you think 'we' are somehow getting ripped off? How much money do you think  Canada is contributing to the defence of est asia against North Korean aggression? How the heck do you think 'we' are getting screwed into paying for Japan and Korea's defence?

Good point, where do you (Nemo888) get the idea that Canada is contributing money towards the defense of Japan, or South Korea, etc? I am as of yet unable to find any numbers, or indication that we are dumping money into that area for defense

Anyways, thats my 2c for what its worth

 

[tabernac]

0.8% of GDP ? Really?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html
We are 126 in defence spending. Japan is 149.

Dude, you got it all wrong. Zimbabwe, at 3.8% GDP, is spending more than both Canada and Japan!  :

The percentages of GDP expenditure do not mean a damn thing.

Let me give you a quick lesson. In international relations, hard power (as opposed to soft power a la McDonald's) is primarily derived from military strength (gunboat/battleship/carrier group diplomacy). Empirically, the only way to measure military strength is to follow the money.

In 2008, Japan spent 46.2 Billion USD on defence, fully 0.9% of their GDP. In the same year, Canada spent 19.2 Billion USD, accounting for 1.3% of our GDP.

The only fact that matters is real dollars spent.

These numbers were taken from Stockholm International Peace Research Institue.

Those crafty Rhodesians Zimbabweyans with their lofty 3.8% only actually spend a comparatively negligible amount of what Canada does. The data is unavailable on SIPRI due to the super-hyper inflation of Mugabe dollars, which are worth less than their weight in paper.

You don't seem knowledgeable or open minded enough to waste time on.

HA! That's rich coming from you. I'm above ad hominem attacks.

Edit: Fo' clarity, bru.

 

[aesop081]

You don't seem knowledgeable or open minded enough to waste time on.

Yeah, obviously, my math was out to lunch. Me working with the JMSDF 3 times in the last 5 years (last time in Japan itself) has shown me that they dont need us (Canada) for their defence. I guess that having a working modern sub fleet, more P-3 at a single base than we have in the entire military, multiple types of fighter aircraft, attack hellicopters........was enough to fool me into thinking that they took their own defence a bit more seriously than we do.

 

[Nemo888]

Actually I thought of one great reason why NATO/America  should be there. Stopping nuclear proliferation. If we pulled out and gave all defence back to the host countries one of the first things they would have to do is make their own nuclear deterrents. Long term this would be a grave error.

 

[Brasidas]

Hit them fast and hard?
Would we be able to attack without causing thousands and thousands of civilian deaths?

No. Seoul's within range of thousands of artillery pieces. As soon as bombs start falling from the air, more guns are going to be dropping shells on 12 million people than planes are going to be able to take out in the first hours of the war.

Link on Seoul-artillery proximity.

 

[57Chevy]

N.Korea warns of more strikes, blames US as carrier heads in:

SEOUL, (AFP) - North Korea on Thursday blamed the South and the US for provoking its artillery bombardment and warned it was ready to strike again, as a US carrier headed in for war games off the tense peninsula.

World powers agonised over how to deal with the volatile and nuclear-armed communist regime over its attack on a Yellow Sea island, in what one veteran North Korea watcher labelled a diplomatic "problem from hell".

Isolated North Korea charged in a statement that "the US can never evade responsibility for the recent exchange of fire", which saw four people killed when Pyongyang’s forces shelled the island in disputed waters on Tuesday.

"If the warmongering South Korean puppets fail to return to their senses and commit another reckless military provocation, our army will carry out second and third rounds of powerful physical retaliatory strikes without hesitation."

The warning came as the US and South Korean navies plan to hold a four-day naval exercise in the Yellow Sea from Sunday that will involve a strike group headed by aircraft carrier the USS George Washington.

Although the show of allied maritime firepower had been scheduled well before this week’s attacks, the US military said, it would also demonstrate the US "commitment to regional stability through deterrence".

South Korea also said Thursday it would "sharply increase military forces, including ground troops, on the five islands in the Yellow Sea and allocate more of its budget toward dealing with North Korea’s asymmetrical threats".

Enraged by the first shelling of its civilians since the 1950-53 Korean War, South Korea was still counting the cost of the attack on Yeonpyeong island, which lies near the tense post-war sea demarcation line.

The explosions that shattered the calm of the remote islet killed two marines and two civilians, wounded 18 others, left 22 buildings in charred ruins and sent hundreds of terrified residents fleeing to the mainland.

Newspapers have called for revenge against the "mad dog" regime, protesters have burnt North Korea’s flag, and some politicians have berated President Lee Myung-Bak for not responding forcefully enough when the South returned fire.

US President Barack Obama has pledged to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with ally South Korea, where 28,500 American troops are stationed, facing off across a Cold War era frontier against the regime run by "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il.

The world has often been baffled by the regime ruling impoverished North Korea, which has staged two nuclear tests, fired missiles over Japan and this month showed off to a US academic a modern new nuclear facility.

Many observers believe Tuesday’s attack was meant to highlight the military credentials of the leader-in-waiting — Kim’s little-known 27-year-old son Kim Jong-Un, who two months ago took a key military post.

The opaque nature of the regime, and its history of brinkmanship, has left world powers at a loss at how to deal with Pyongyang — a problem vastly compounded by divisions within the international community.

North Korea has also rejected a proposal by the US-led United Nations Command, which supervises the armistice, to hold military talks on the attack, Yonhap news agency reported citing a South Korean defence official.

While the US, European powers, South Korea and Japan have long pushed hard to sanction the regime, China and Russia have favoured a softer line with Pyongyang, a Cold War era ally and neighbour to both.

When an intergovernmental expert panel found that a North Korean submarine in March torpedoed and sank a South Korean corvette the Cheonan, killing all 46 sailor aboard, China refused to blame the Pyongyang regime.

Premier Wen Jiabao said in Moscow that "China is firmly committed to maintaining the peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and opposes any provocative military acts".

It was not clear whether Wen was referring to the North Korean shelling or to the planned US-South Korean military exercises. Beijing has bitterly opposed similar war games there in the past.

North Korea expert Peter Beck, with the US think tank the Council on Foreign Relations, said: "In the wake of the Cheonan sinking, Beijing showed us that they are more than willing to put up with Pyongyang’s worst behaviour."

"Given that this incident brings us closer to the brink of war than the Cheonan, Beijing might conclude that enough is enough and quietly put their foot down, but I am not holding my breath."

The Gazette article link
                          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[NSDreamer]

N.Korea warns of more strikes, blames US as carrier heads in:

"Given that this incident brings us closer to the brink of war than the Cheonan, Beijing might conclude that enough is enough and quietly put their foot down, but I am not holding my breath."

  Somehow I get the feeling that NK would just get more belligerent if China 'put their foot down' even considering how heavily they depend on them...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is veteran Canadian diplomat Derek Burney's take on the Korean dilemma:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/only-china-can-tame-north-korea/article1813981/

Only China can tame North Korea
DEREK BURNEY
From Friday's Globe and Mail

North Korea’s penchant for irrational military strikes against South Korea is similar to the antics of a schoolyard bully. Intimidation and the use of force to compel obeisance or, better still, economic benefit has worked well for North Korea before. It should not be surprising to see this movie again, even though this is the first time since the Korean War that North Korea has attacked land-based targets. That is an alarming escalation of all too typical provocative behaviour by North Korea. The West responds with strong words while Pyongyang knowingly relies on the unflinching support of its neighbour, China.

The attack on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong comes in the wake of reports from the former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Siegfried Hecker, that North Korea’s march to nuclear weapons status is accelerating. Persistent efforts by the six-party negotiators to contain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and its equally nefarious habit of selling sensitive nuclear materials to the likes of Iran and Myanmar, are proving to be futile.

Just like the schoolyard bully, North Korea pockets the rewards from attempts to negotiate but adamantly and openly refuses to change its behaviour. Talk is no antidote to blatant aggression.

Whether the latest attack is yet another bait-and-switch or “provoke for reward” tactic or a means to prop up the newly designated and, except by heredity, completely unqualified successor to Pyongyang’s Dear Leader is not important. More critical is what North Korea’s neighbours, notably China, will do to contain and pressure better behaviour.

The United States and Japan have limited if not diminishing means of effective response. South Korea, because it is much more economically advanced, is far more vulnerable to sporadic attacks. North Korea, with an economy that is virtually dormant and a population that is mired in abject poverty, has less to lose. The North does have a mighty military, the backbone of its totalitarian regime. But it has little fear of military retaliation, given the limp reaction to previous attacks.

No one wants military hostilities to escalate, but nor should North Korea’s irrational action be rewarded, as it has been in the past. China’s priority has for too long been ostensibly to prevent the collapse of the North Korean regime and the potential flood of refugees into China.

The threat North Korea’s provocations pose to instability in Northeast Asia and to nuclear proliferation on a global scale should command greater concern. China alone provides or facilitates virtually all of the foreign goods needed to sustain a meagre life for most North Koreans, along with luxuries for those who rule. If China genuinely wants to demonstrate that it can play a role as a responsible global power, commensurate with its rising economic strength, it should do more than urge others to re-engage the six-party discussions with the two Koreas, Russia, China, Japan and the United States. A public wringing of hands will have little effect in yet another fruitless round of negotiation.

China should, instead, exercise its tangible influence to rectify the erratic antics of its neighbour. No more bribes, no more blandishments, no more circular diplomacy. It is time to tame the bully with leverage only China is able to exercise.

Derek H. Burney, senior strategic adviser to Ogilvy Renault and senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, was Canada’s ambassador to the Republic of Korea from 1978 to 1980.

While I agree with Burney that:

a. DPRK is acting like a typical schoolyard bully; and

b. The USA and Japan have 'limited' responses available.

I do not agree that ”flee or fight” are the only options for them. In this particular case they have another option: isolate North Korea – refuse even the most basic contacts: no food aid, despite the fact (and it is a fact) that North Koreans are starving; no nuclear negotiations, except a dire and firmly delivered warning that a nuclear attack by DPRK on anyone, anywhere will result in the absolute, total and complete obliteration of North Korea, despite the consequences for its neighbours who are, also, America's allies; no more UN truce talks; and so on.

China may or may not be inclined to reign in North Korea. China is playing a longer game but isolating the DPRK – in effect making the Korean card valueless in the 'game' – may provoke the Chinese into doing something positive to preserve its important commercial ties with South Korea which is, after all, the prize the Chinese are trying to 'win.'

 

[George Wallace]

North Korea is the most sanctioned nation on the planet.  So far all the embargos still hasn't stopped them.  Bringing China onside may be the only answer.

 

[Edward Campbell]

North Korea is the most sanctioned nation on the planet.  So far all the embargos still hasn't stopped them.  Bringing China onside may be the only answer.

That's because we keep talking to and about them and, despite the sanctions, we (countries other than China) keep sending food and medicine.

 

[Brasidas]

That's because we keep talking to and about them and, despite the sanctions, we (countries other than China) keep sending food and medicine.

Is cutting off food really going to make their regime more reasonable? I'd think it'd have a good chance of resolving things in short order, but I wouldn't want to be a policy maker who pushed this solution if it gets resolved with a hell of a lot of blood.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Is cutting off food really going to make their regime more reasonable? I'd think it'd have a good chance of resolving things in short order, but I wouldn't want to be a policy maker who pushed this solution if it gets resolved with a hell of a lot of blood.

That is a very good point, but doing what we've been doing hasn't produced any desirable results, so ...

 

[Rifleman62]

How about a world wide consumer boycott of Chinese goods for one week to show the Chinese that the world knows who has control over NK? Governments can state the action is their citizens voting with their wallets.

Surely union workers and their families can do without Wally Mart for seven days!

 

[MPwannabe]

On Black Friday? That's blasphemy. 

 

[tomahawk6]

The PRC wants Washington to turn the USS George Washington around.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-us-korea-war-drill-2010-11?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29#ixzz16PAbXWRS

China has warned against military activity near its coastline ahead of U.S.-Korea naval exercises, according to Reuters.


China's Foreign Ministry said in an online posting that naval exercises risks starting a war: "We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval."

North Korea has also threatened to respond to military gestures with more attacks: "The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war due to the reckless plan of those trigger-happy elements to stage again war exercises targeted against the (North)."

If this sounds familiar, it's because the same thing happened after the Cheonan shipwreck. America sent some warships to join in naval exercises, China was outraged, and America yielded and moved the exercises primarily to a more distant location.

China wants peace. The only problem with Pax China is that it includes little protection for South Korea against the next surprise attack from Pyongyang.

 

[Brasidas]

The PRC wants Washington to turn the USS George Washington around.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-us-korea-war-drill-2010-11?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29#ixzz16PAbXWRS

China's Foreign Ministry said in an online posting that naval exercises risks starting a war: "We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval."

Didn't know that South Korea and it's territorial waters were within "China's exclusive economic zone". Do the South Koreans know that?

 

[aesop081]

Didn't know that South Korea and it's territorial waters were within "China's exclusive economic zone". Do the South Koreans know that?

I think you will find that what one country claims as its EEZ is often not what the other countries around it consider the EEZ to be. This perticular region has several long-standing disputes with regards to waterspace. Even teritorial waters are sometimes disputed depending on the methodology used to measure them. I'm not sure where exactly this exercise is being held but it may not even be inside Sout Korea's TTW.