Trump says US will act alone on North Korea if China fails to help

[Skroe]

If that's the case, then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the US to link up with NATO on this, rather than making a blanket statement that the US, and the US alone, will deal with it?

I'm not against stopping N. Korea from developing nuclear delivery platforms, I'm just getting some awful flashbacks to the 2003 Iraq war and how well that went for us last time. Only now we have Iran, Russia and China to contend with.

Most NATO countries have limited, if any interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and a conflict there would not necessarily involve them whatsoever. Most NATO countries have essentially no ability to project power in the region. It's also not the purpose of NATO.

The US's allies on this issue are South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Japan. Japan has one of the most powerful armed forces in the world by most measures. They constrain themselves with policy and weapon choices, but a warship is a warship, a jet fighter is a jet fighter, and Japans are very, very good.


Unlike Saddam in 2003, North Korea has actually detonated nuclear devices 5 (6?) times, and is actively testing increasingly capable ballistic missiles. The threat from them is not theoretical. It's real. And while they don't yet have a submarine launched ballistic missile yet, marrying the two technologies is not beyond their capabilities. Every other hurdle they've had ahead of them they've managed to surpass. Given enough time, they'll surpass this one too.

- - - Updated - - -

Technically Japan cannot conduct any type of offensive military action(Remember Word War II?). They really only have a self-defense force so they won't touch North Korea.

That's slowly changing. And the US is encouraging that change.

[Kaleredar]

Oh so more of Trump's same nonspecific drivel?

Dealing with North Korea, believe it or not, requires more tact than just flying in and blowing stuff and people up.

South Korea stands to face ALL of the collateral from any military dealings with North Korea.

"Well they'll be happy to take the bullets for us" is really not a viable response.

[Aori]

Technically Japan cannot conduct any type of offensive military action(Remember Word War II?). They really only have a self-defense force so they won't touch North Korea.

It is in their constitution that they do not commit military to offensive actions. However they've in the past interpreted it as defending allies is defending Japan. In addition if North Korea is a threat to Japan they will have full authority of their constitution to perform such an action.

[Auxora]

The mistake would be to deal with North Korea as separate from China, when really NK couldn't survive without China and is close to a Chinese a pseudo-state. Don't make NK our problem (which is what China wants for many reasons), we need to make sure NK *is* China's problem. Trump should tell China that NK cannot be a nuclear state, nor constantly "test fire" missiles at Japan and US bases.

I see 2 ways to force China's hand and make NK their problem. One would be to say that if China won't deal with NK and stop their nuclear and ICBM program, that we will re-deploy nukes to South Korea. That's the last thing China would want since that would put them on China's doorstep too. This is already being discussed and polls show a majority of people in South Korea surprisingly favor it as well. The other more extreme option would be to tell China that if the US does go to war with NK, that once defeated all of Korea including the current NK will be unified under a US-friendly RoK. That would mean a US military presence directly on China's border. Warn China of either of those and instead of Kim being our problem, he suddenly becomes a problem they actually have to deal with. It's hard to imagine a good US outcome for the situation continuing to deal with NK individually and not forcing China's hand. If you are an adult have a problem with a kid, continuing to argue with the kid usually gets your nowhere. The way to get something done is to go to the kids parents (China->NK in this case).

[Krigaren]

Most NATO countries have limited, if any interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and a conflict there would not necessarily involve them whatsoever. Most NATO countries have essentially no ability to project power in the region. It's also not the purpose of NATO.

The US's allies on this issue are South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Japan. Japan has one of the most powerful armed forces in the world by most measures. They constrain themselves with policy and weapon choices, but a warship is a warship, a jet fighter is a jet fighter, and Japans are very, very good.


Unlike Saddam in 2003, North Korea has actually detonated nuclear devices 5 (6?) times, and is actively testing increasingly capable ballistic missiles. The threat from them is not theoretical. It's real. And while they don't yet have a submarine launched ballistic missile yet, marrying the two technologies is not beyond their capabilities. Every other hurdle they've had ahead of them they've managed to surpass. Given enough time, they'll surpass this one too.

Understood. That's some good info, thank you Skroe.

I guess my main point of comparison with 2003 and today is that the US bought into that military action based on lies, and an over-inflated sense of urgency to deal with a threat that barely existed. So far, while NKR has demonstrated that they have nuclear capability and has shown off some of their rocket delivery systems, I'm not sure if there's been any serious or credible threat made against anyone. Just a lot of flashing lights and saber rattling, but no real indication that they intend to strike anyone, even if they could.

I'd prefer not to get into another major military conflict, which would definitely have long-lasting, serious consequences, without there being a very, very good reason aside from a pre-emptive first strike in order to prevent some nebulous, unsubstantiated threat. And I'd definitely want the buy-in of the ally nations who would be most directly affected if it all goes tits up.

[Skroe]

Understood. That's some good info, thank you Skroe.

I guess my main point of comparison with 2003 and today is that the US bought into that military action based on lies, and an over-inflated sense of urgency to deal with a threat that barely existed. So far, while NKR has demonstrated that they have nuclear capability and has shown off some of their rocket delivery systems, I'm not sure if there's been any serious or credible threat made against anyone. Just a lot of flashing lights and saber rattling, but no real indication that they intend to strike anyone, even if they could.

I'd prefer not to get into another major military conflict, which would definitely have long-lasting, serious consequences, without there being a very, very good reason aside from a pre-emptive first strike in order to prevent some nebulous, unsubstantiated threat. And I'd definitely want the buy-in of the ally nations who would be most directly affected if it all goes tits up.

A war against North Korea would be on a scale far greater than the Iraq War in 2003. It would be the largest military conflict the US engaged in since the Korean War itself in terms of it's destructive potential. Hundreds of thousands of civilians will die in it... and not over ten years due to an insurgency, but in days, weeks or months as the conflict continues.

And on the other side of it is a rebuilding effort that will take thirty years and cost trillions of dollars... many times what was spent in Iraq.

Rest assured, nobody is going to rush into this one. But every day North Korea gets more dangerous. They can have their fun with stationary and road mobile ballistic missiles that our interceptors could deal with. But a submarine launched weapon is a step too far.

You'd never get a "buy in " from all nations. Most nations have few, if any interests in the region and will just make platitudes about a peaceful compromise. It would be a China-South Korea-US-Japan-Australia-Pacific Rim affair, and China and the US will be at odds, because for China, the only thing worse than a North Korea they can barely control is a US occupying force on their border.

[Deleted]

The US's allies on this issue are South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Japan.

Hahahahaha you wish.... Duterte is gonna show you his middle finger and tell you what he thinks about your mother, just what you deserve.

[Beazy]

Hahahahaha you wish.... Duterte is gonna show you his middle finger and tell you what he thinks about your mother, just what you deserve.

You're thinking of when Obama was president. If im not mistaken, Duerte is scheduled to meet Trump at the White House, if he hasnt already. Trump said some crazy shit like "hes cleaning up the drug problem in the Philippines, the right way".

I can see them being good friends, and spending part of my federal income tax I pay each week, to play golf with each other at the MarryGoFuckYourself ranch or what ever the hell his hotel/resort is called.

[Krigaren]

Rest assured, nobody is going to rush into this one.

I mean, I want to believe that. I really do. But I suppose only time will tell.

You'd never get a "buy in " from all nations. Most nations have few, if any interests in the region and will just make platitudes about a peaceful compromise. It would be a China-South Korea-US-Japan-Australia-Pacific Rim affair, and China and the US will be at odds, because for China, the only thing worse than a North Korea they can barely control is a US occupying force on their border.

Well, that's why I said I'd prefer a buy-in from the nations that would be most affected. Those would be the nations that would face the fall-out of military action in the region. While it would be nice to have the support of the UK, Germany and the Euro bloc, having the support of Japan, South Korea and maybe Australia would be all we'd need to have a strong multi-national coalition, since they're the ones NK has their sights set on.

Fuck the Philippines though. The world can do without the support of Duarte and his thugs.

[ShimmerSwirl]

You don't need to defend North Korea to discuss how stupid Trump is being.

Expanding upon this: China's whole deal ever since WW2 has been isolationism. They tend to abstain on any initiative that doesn't involve them, and oppose any initiative that does involve them. They got invaded and punked in the wars and now they like having buffer states around themselves, and so long as those buffer states are no danger to them, they couldn't give less of a shit about how they run or what they do. This world view underlies every single action you've seen from China for seventy years.

Only by getting China to see NK as a threat to them will you ever motivate them to action. By challenging NK regardless of motive, you invite China to see defending them as in their best interest. China doesn't see NK as an issue to solve. They do see them as a valuable buffer state.

I don't know why you say China is isolationist, they are heavily dependent on foreign trade, but I do agree with your other point. If N Korea falls, China does lose a big buffer against Japan.

[Orby]

yay more war... :*(

Hope its a fast in and out job, the Iraq invasion was a horrible waste of life, and hated seeing all those videos of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters never returning home.

[ShimmerSwirl]

If the US wants to get China's attention all they really have to do is pull their naval ships out of the Persian Gulf. Let those tankers headed for China fend for themselves, get taken by pirates; starve China of some oil and they will be more willing to negotiate.

[Heladys]

I don't know why you say China is isolationist, they are heavily dependent on foreign trade, but I do agree with your other point. If N Korea falls, China does lose a big buffer against Japan.

They are indeed heavily invested in trade, but if you look at their stances and interactions on world affairs, they are fundamentally isolationist. It helps explain all their otherwise incomprehensible and occasionally self-contradictory stances.