Originally posted by citanon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Korean Dilemma
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View Post3. hard to say as is not clear how deep the test was conducted but couple of hundred kt is plausible. Yes the earlier figures of 100kt could be lower than realityChimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by DOR View PostLet's see how far this really goes ...
September 23, 2017
China says to ban petroleum exports to North Korea
SHANGHAI (Reuters) -- China said on Saturday it will ban exports of some petroleum products to North Korea, as well as imports of textiles from the isolated North, to comply with a United Nations Security Council resolution.
The Ministry of Commerce said in a statement on its website that China would ban exports of refined petroleum products from Oct. 1, and of condensates and liquefied natural gas immediately.
Imports of textiles from North Korea would also be banned immediately, the statement said.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Eco...to-North-Korea
China can get this done, but the price they want isn't acceptable so they drag their feet. Longer it plays out the more indispensable China appears
Comment
-
Kim's still got a few more tests to do. Nail the nuke, Nail the ICBM, and only then soften his position and reconcile with the world with everything intact
By this time the sanctions will be biting, the people will be suffering and then Kim gets to say i want to deal but see how irrational the world is behaving
Comment
-
Five lessons from the weirdest North Korea crisis yet | Lowy | Oct 3 2017
3. The Western media risks complicity in a panicked march to war
Last month I argued that the disjuncture between Western, especially American, media, and South Korean media on North Korea was inexplicably large, with the Westerners far more alarmed than South Koreans. This continues to be the case. Most recently, the North Korean earthquake that turned out to just be an earthquake got far too much speculative attention that it might be yet another nuclear test before it was disproved. I also continue to notice the large gap between Korea experts brought onto the networks and the networks’ own in-house panels of generalist journalists and commentators. The latter are almost always more alarmist and hawkish than the former, who almost uniformly seem to think this crisis need not tip into a conflict. I find Fox, especially 'The Five' show, to be the most egregious on this.
Reaching to established contributors is cheap and convenient, but this is such a serious topic that TV producers should think twice about defaulting to Washington generalists. The run-up to the Iraq War similarly failed to tap the expert community deeply enough, and this crisis involves nuclear weapons. There are a lot of very good Korea experts out there, and they do not get nearly the airtime they should compared to generalist journalists and pundits.
4. China is still the key
There is a growing acceptance that the China track has failed, but it is still the most realistic way to achieve some cap on the North’s programs which does not involve the huge risks of air-strikes, or the huge concessions required by talks.
Probably the smartest thing Trump has done on North Korea to date is push China hard. Yes, it has not worked out well, but the alternatives are all so poor, I find all the criticism of this track curious. China’s economic leverage is established; critical oil exports, recipient of 92% of North Korean exports, banking access, and so on. That leverage is vastly preferable to the other two options: conflict or talks. Airstrikes have well-established risks and should only be an absolute last, preemptive resort if Northern missiles are actually fueling. Airstrikes could easily ignite a spiraling regional conflict. Talks are similarly a weak vehicle. The North Koreans will demand huge concessions now. They have nuclear weapons and have endured months of Trump’s taunts. They will ask for so much, that the South and the US will almost certainly demur. So if hawkish military alternatives are too risky, and dovish negotiations sure to be flim-flammed by the North, what is left? Sanctions, missile defence, and other unilateral actions will buy us time, but they will not cease or cap the programs.
Only China has the economic weight to really punish the North. China’s tolerance for NK shenanigans – up to and including a fusion weapons on an ICBM – is much higher than almost anyone expected. But I see little alternative beyond going back to the Chinese yet again.Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Oct 17,, 01:44.
Comment
-
China doesn't seem to have much leverge on the Nkoreans.
Why Kim Jong Un is alienating ChinaPoliticians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!
Comment
-
Not buying it. They want something in exchange. What ? longer it goes on the more indispensable they appear with piece meal delivery
Their prime concern when Kim set his nuke off was environmental. Turns out it wasn't as scary as they thought
Right now, kim would have to screw up big time to get them anxious. Detonating a nuke over the ocean would do it.Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Oct 17,, 03:19.
Comment
-
PLA general Wang Hong Guang: NK artillery will not be effective against Seoul in case war breaks out:
https://mil.sina.cn/2017-04-12/detai....html?from=wap
Chinese source authored by Wang himself. Excellent analysis. Use Google translate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by citanon View PostPLA general Wang Hong Guang: NK artillery will not be effective against Seoul in case war breaks out:
https://mil.sina.cn/2017-04-12/detai....html?from=wap
Chinese source authored by Wang himself. Excellent analysis. Use Google translate.
But is toppling Kim an option ? i mean taking him out somehow
No need for a war thenLast edited by Double Edge; 16 Dec 17,, 22:41.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostInteresting read
But is toppling Kim an option ? i mean taking him out somehow
No need for a war then
I suppose we could try to whack him and then step back, but any possible sort of coherent succession (around his siblings, possibly) would probably be hell bent on revenge.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Skywatcher View PostI suppose we could try to whack him and then step back, but any possible sort of coherent succession (around his siblings, possibly) would probably be hell bent on revenge.
Might be hell bent on revenge but will be a different regime which means have a sweet deal ready. Didn't work with the previous regime could work with the new one
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostThat is what i'm getting at, it seems the cheaper option. Drone him or something. But i understand the US got out of the political asassination business sometime in the late 70s
Might be hell bent on revenge but will be a different regime which means have a sweet deal ready. Didn't work with the previous regime could work with the new one
Though the downside is that there's a pretty good chance North Korea could collapse into anarchy (he's killed off most of anyone who has the authority or legitimacy to make a power bid).
Comment
Comment