North Korea Defence Forum

[艹艹艹]

Why the US military bases in South Korea and Japan
Why not withdraw
North Korea has no other country's Armed Forces

 

[terranMarine]

And what made you think a mere nuclear test would instigate a US military response? All members of the Six-Party Talks, save North Korea itself, benefit from an economically-intertwined but politically-quiescent region. The dollar value of trade amongst the countries are in the tens of billions; so, no, the geopolitical dynamic of the Korean peninsular is anything but black-and-white despite the seemingly-bipolar nature of the club.

Have you forgotten about what happened to Iraq? Syria? Libya? Hey i'm just saying they didn't do anything yet the US went on rampage

 

[TaiShang]

What an impressive development in mere ten years of nuclear proliferation, regardless of one's hate or sympathy toward DPRK's fierce sovereignty.

They started in 2006, continued in 2009, 2013 and finally a streak of developments in 2016.

The key for DPRK is to have the capacity to be able to have nuclear strike delivery capability to the US mainland. They will not stop until they have it.

Why try to stop the unstoppable? US can place lots of THAADs on its East Coast liberally without anybody's objections.

**

China is principally against nuclear proliferation.

Yet we cannot turn blind eye to the root cause, which is the endless US-led provocations.

If one is to be held accountable for this unhealthy situation, it is the US and its regional allies.

If the US thinks it can mobilize UN to indiscriminately punish DPRK people, then can start eating up their dreams because neither China nor Russia will let that happen.

 

[cirr]

And hence why nobody expects the Chinese or the Russians to move a finger if Mr. Kim gets himself into a quagmire he can't handle.

(1) The Americans leave SK
(2) N and S sign a peace treaty
(3) the two are allowed to choose their own path of development with NO interference by any third country

Simple really.

But the Americans, out of its own evil interests, won't let the above happen.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

More nuclear weapons more we are inching towards nuclear war. There will always be a d*ckhead with high ego to launch a nuclear warhead for tiniest of incident, then it will start......

 

[艹艹艹]

(1) The Americans leave SK
(2) N and S sign a peace treaty
(3) the two are allowed to choose their own path of development with NO interference by any third country

Simple really.

But the Americans, out of its own evil interests, won't let the above happen.

You are right

 

[Akasa]

Have you forgotten about what happened to Iraq? Syria? Libya? Hey i'm just saying they didn't do anything yet the US went on rampage

That wasn't my point. The assumption that the geopolitical fate of NK lies with either recklessly testing nuclear armaments or a US-led invasion, with no room for middle ground, is unreasonable and a rash oversimplification of US foreign policy.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I think in general South and North Korea have tried to iron out the relations many times , it is up to them to see how they can work with each other they don't need a third party

South Koreans belong that region
North Korean belong that region
Japan is happy in their world

Some body should not be there I wonder who that is ? a Third party playing both sides who could it be ?

It is certainly not China and Russia they are in their own countries minding their own business

Some third party that likes to just build bases , cause disruption , setup missiles in middle of no where

Who can that be , I am just trying really hard , to visualize that country but my mind is slipping away due to old age

 

[TaiShang]

The assumption that the geopolitical fate of NK lies with either recklessly testing nuclear armaments or a US-led invasion, with no room for middle ground, is unreasonable and a rash oversimplification of US foreign policy.

In fact it is so simple. Check out their history of invading other countries, without looking for the famous grey areas, on phony grounds.

You are apparently over-emphasizing their strategic capacity.

If there were no China or Russia, the DPRK was up in smokes already.

What the US is concerned about is not the health of Koreans on either side. It is their very physical existence in the Asia-Pacific or, in an extreme situation, in their own mainland.

 

[Akasa]

(1) The Americans leave SK
(2) N and S sign a peace treaty
(3) the two are allowed to choose their own path of development with NO interference by any third country

Simple really.

But the Americans, out of its own evil interests, won't let the above happen.

Whereas in reality:
1. The US presence in ROK is to deter DPRK. The status quo will be held until DPRK is sufficiently sensible as to eliminate any US rationale for staying there.
2. A ROK-DPRK treaty in the short run is out of the question.
3. The Chinese will very much wish to interfere with whatever government is situated south of their border.

 

[terranMarine]

That wasn't my point. The assumption that the geopolitical fate of NK lies with either recklessly testing nuclear armaments or a US-led invasion, with no room for middle ground, is unreasonable and a rash oversimplification of US foreign policy.

And why was there no middle ground for Iraq, Libya ? Testing nukes is serious topic, we are talking about WMD isn't that the reason why US accused Iraq and Syria for possessing or developing them in the first place so that they can justify military actions? I think everybody can tell why the US isn't taking military actions against KIM because of the obvious reason.

 

[Akasa]

In fact it is so simple. Check out their history of invading other countries, without looking for the famous grey areas, on phony grounds.

The US has a history of overseas military interventions? So does China. And Persia. And Spain. And the Netherlands. Get my point?

You are apparently over-emphasizing their strategic capacity.

If there were no China or Russia, the DPRK was up in smokes already.

If there were no DPRK, the US would have had no rationale, at least superficially, to station 60% of their fleet in the Pacific. But, as usual, we have strayed from the main trajectory of our discussion.

 

[TaiShang]

The US has a history of overseas military interventions? So does China. And Persia. And Spain. And the Netherlands. Get my point?

What is your point? That the US has been seeking a "grey area" just because they simply do not want to get into war (or one-sided bombing campaign) in the DPRK?

If there were no DPRK, the US would have had no rationale, at least superficially, to station 60% of their fleet in the Pacific. But, as usual, we have strayed from the main trajectory of our discussion.

If there were no US in the Korean Peninsula, there would be no rationale for proliferation in the North.

 

[cirr]

Whereas in reality:
1. The US presence in ROK is to deter DPRK. The status quo will be held until DPRK is sufficiently sensible as to eliminate any US rationale for staying there.
2. A ROK-DPRK treaty in the short run is out of the question.
3. The Chinese will very much wish to interfere with whatever government is situated south of their border.

Deter DPRK?

Are you naive or stupid?

SK is strong enough to fend for itself.

The American presence serves only one purpose and that's to deter China and Russia.

NK will carry on doing what it has been doing for years and there is nothing the Americans can do about it.

 

[Akasa]

And why was there no middle ground for Iraq, Libya ? Testing nukes is serious topic, we are talking about WMD isn't that the reason why US accused Iraq and Syria for possessing or developing them in the first place so that they can justify military actions? I think everybody can tell why the US isn't taking military actions against KIM because of the obvious reason.

There was plenty of middle ground in Libya, in which Colonel Qaddafi was given one too many chances to single-handedly halt the systematic killings of his own population. Iraq's conflict was not centered around a tangible WMD threat as media outlets assume it to be.

The lack of a US armed response to North Korea precipitates out of numerous variables and circumstances, which may not necessarily be tied to wariness of the DPRK's military. If a cost-benefit analysis deemed that the DPRK nuclear threat imparts more harm and risk to US & her allies than a military intervention, the latter would almost be guaranteed to occur.