The Korean Dilemma

[Ironduke]

Full article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1JI2YV

Pentagon indefinitely suspends some training exercises with South Korea

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and South Korea have agreed to indefinitely suspend two exchange program training exercises, the Pentagon said on Friday, in the aftermath of the summit earlier this month between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“To support implementing the outcomes of the Singapore Summit, and in coordination with our Republic of Korea ally, Secretary Mattis has indefinitely suspended select exercises,” Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said.

“This includes suspending FREEDOM GUARDIAN along with two Korean Marine Exchange Program training exercises scheduled to occur in the next three months,” White said.

Regarding suspension of the exercises, South Korea’s defense ministry said, “South Korea and the U.S. decided to delay two of KMEP (drills) indefinitely, which was going to take place within the next three months.

“This is a part of follow-up measures after the North Korea-U.S. summit and South Korea-North Korea summit. There could be additional measures should North Korea follow suit with productive cooperation.”

At a news conference after the meeting with Kim in Singapore, Trump announced that he would halt what he called “very provocative” and expensive regular military exercises that the United States holds with South Korea. North Korea had long sought an end to the war games.

This week, the United States and South Korea said they were suspending planning for August’s Freedom Guardian exercise.

Last year, 17,500 American troops and more than 50,000 South Korean troops joined the Freedom Guardian drills, although the exercise is mostly focused on computerized simulations rather than field exercises.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, played down the significance of suspending the Korean Marine Exchange Program training exercises, saying they were relatively minor.

Jim Mattis met with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford and Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton on Friday, White said.

“In support of upcoming diplomatic negotiations led by Secretary Pompeo, additional decisions will depend upon the DPRK continuing to have productive negotiations in good faith,” she added, referring to North Korea.

Every spring, the United States and South Korea conduct Foal Eagle and Max Thunder drills, both of which wrapped up in May.

The decision to halt military exercises with South Korea baffled allies, military officials and lawmakers. The drills help keep U.S. forces at a state of readiness in one of the world’s most tense flashpoints.

[Ironduke]

Full article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1JH2QX

Trump: North Korea 'total denuclearization' started; officials see no new moves

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday North Korea was blowing up four of its big test sites and that a process of “total denuclearization ... has already started,” but officials said there was no such evidence since a landmark summit last week.

Trump said at a Cabinet meeting in the White House that “They’ve stopped the sending of missiles, including ballistic missiles. They’re destroying their engine site. They’re blowing it up. They’ve already blown up one of their big test sites, in fact it’s actually four of their big test sites.

“And the big thing is it will be a total denuclearization, which has already started taking place.”

It was not immediately clear which North Korean test sites Trump was referring to and U.S. officials familiar with current intelligence on North Korea’s nuclear and missile test sites said there was no evidence of new moves to dismantle any sites since Trump met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, speculated Trump might have been referring to explosions last month that North Korea said were to destroy tunnels at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site and the dismantling of a medium-range ballistic missile test stand at Iha-ri, also in May.

There had been contact with North Korean officials since the summit, the U.S. State Department said.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “will be meeting with them and talking with them at the earliest possible date” to implement what was agreed in Singapore, spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters, without providing further details.

Asked on Wednesday if North Korea had done anything toward denuclearization since the summit, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters: “No, I’m not aware of that ... obviously, it’s the very front end of a process. The detailed negotiations have not begun. I wouldn’t expect that at this point.”

Mattis sat next to Trump at Thursday’s Cabinet meeting.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s latest remarks. There also was no immediate response from the White House.

The U.S.-based North Korea monitoring group 38 North said in an analysis at the end of last week there had been no sign of any activity toward dismantling of any missile test site.

[Firestorm]

And there's the EMP to consider. But I have to wonder. Is Moscow any safer with 40 tac nukes exploding in the air instead of 9 nukes hitting the ground?

The Russians don't seem to like the idea all that much and are working on the S-500 which seems to be similar to THAAD. But even if they get it to work the Americans can overwhelm it with sheer numbers I guess. The best defense against an ICBM will remain another ICBM.

[Officer of Engineers]

Claimed. So, not 100% proven. This technologies take time to mature.

Enough tests to cast more than enough doubt to the Chinese NOT to test American ABMs under wartime conditions.

You mean the Russians will nuke their own land with their own nukes to destroy an incoming nuke? Or the Russians will detonate one of their nukes in air on the path of an incoming nuke?

They're nuclear ABMs. Nuke tipped rockets to intercept incoming RV.

If and when they hit, then everything goes kaput isn't it, if the warhead wasn't a decoy.

That's the idea.

So there exists any kind of technology (super computers or something) that can identify a decoy?

Nothing real time.

IIRC, the radiation from the blast of the ABM nuke warhead is supposed to 'neutralize' the incoming warhead by messing with the purity of the uranium/plutonium core.

And there's the EMP to consider. But I have to wonder. Is Moscow any safer with 40 tac nukes exploding in the air instead of 9 nukes hitting the ground?

[Skywatcher]

IIRC, the radiation from the blast of the ABM nuke warhead is supposed to 'neutralize' the incoming warhead by messing with the purity of the uranium/plutonium core.

[Oracle]

The American system is claimed to be effective in such regard. The Russians use nukes to intercept nukes, ie a nuclear blast radius big enough to destroy or throw the incoming RV off course.

Claimed. So, not 100% proven. This technologies take time to mature.

You mean the Russians will nuke their own land with their own nukes to destroy an incoming nuke? Or the Russians will detonate one of their nukes in air on the path of an incoming nuke?

Sure. When they hit. But to answer your question. Only Russia got enough ICBMs to overwhelm the American ABM system. China got 20-30 ICBMs that can hit the US.

????

If and when they hit, then everything goes kaput isn't it, if the warhead wasn't a decoy. So there exists any kind of technology (super computers or something) that can identify a decoy?

[Officer of Engineers]

#1. In general, are ABM systems effective at all against ICBMs that travel at Mach-20+?

The American system is claimed to be effective in such regard. The Russians use nukes to intercept nukes, ie a nuclear blast radius big enough to destroy or throw the incoming RV off course.

#2. Do any country have the technology to identify decoys from warheads that carries nuke?

Sure. When they hit. But to answer your question. Only Russia got enough ICBMs to overwhelm the American ABM system. China got 20-30 ICBMs that can hit the US.

[Oracle]

I've said the Chinese could build 2000 nuclear CAPABLE missiles.

The context of which that was written was to show that countries like Taiwan and India could not build enough ABMs to defeat so many missiles. They would not know which ones are decoys and which ones actually carry nukes.

Sir,
#1. In general, are ABM systems effective at all against ICBMs that travel at Mach-20+?

#2. Do any country have the technology to identify decoys from warheads that carries nuke?

[Officer of Engineers]

I've said the Chinese could build 2000 nuclear CAPABLE missiles.

The context of which that was written was to show that countries like Taiwan and India could not build enough ABMs to defeat so many missiles. They would not know which ones are decoys and which ones actually carry nukes.

[hboGYT]

The point about Chinese books and IAEA books is in fact about compliance. China's entry into the NPT had to be verified. Do recall that at one point, we estimated that they had 600-1000 warheads. Imagine our surprise when they said they had less than 100. Thus, began the long journey of correlating our estimates with their actual output.

We knew these factories were operating at so many years and based on that, there should be x amount of fissile materials. Where are the fissile materials?

Thus began the long journey of correlating their data with our estimates. To put a final note to this, China has enough fissile materials for around 400 warheads but has around 200 warheads in their arsenal.

The process with North Korea would be no less daunting. I am NOT of the opinion that they have 40-60 warheads but that is where the IAEA will start with their correlation.

But you said the Chinese could build 1~2000 nuke tipped missiles within 2 years at one point. Do you still stand by that estimate?

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't think China getting books to IAEA standards in just 5 years is at all relevant because there never was a denuclearise condition imposed on China to begin with. China got to keep nukes and if the path to normalisation meant swift compliance with international standards then the incentive to get it done was there.

As for accounting getting NK to declare what they have ? maybe conditions could be created to allow that declaration. It would yield more info than is currently known which would then have to be verified in compliance with whatever agreements are made

The point about Chinese books and IAEA books is in fact about compliance. China's entry into the NPT had to be verified. Do recall that at one point, we estimated that they had 600-1000 warheads. Imagine our surprise when they said they had less than 100. Thus, began the long journey of correlating our estimates with their actual output.

We knew these factories were operating at so many years and based on that, there should be x amount of fissile materials. Where are the fissile materials?

Thus began the long journey of correlating their data with our estimates. To put a final note to this, China has enough fissile materials for around 400 warheads but has around 200 warheads in their arsenal.

The process with North Korea would be no less daunting. I am NOT of the opinion that they have 40-60 warheads but that is where the IAEA will start with their correlation.

[Double Edge]

Reunification only happens when the Kim family is removed from power or takes control of the whole peninsula. Neither seems likely in the short term. Even if the first happens AND China gets out of the way it is not an easy road.

It appears to be a gradual affair as explained in this paper

If unification can be understood as ‘overcoming the division’ in which the nation, state, and territory are united, on the other hand, integration is ‘overcoming the internal fragmentation’ within the Korean society, with a ‘harmonization and convergence’ of various sectors between North and South Korea. While unification is an event that is clearly definable in political and legal terms in a specific historic moment, integration refers to the degree of each sector’s internal unity and stages of interfusion.

What is the relationship between unification and integration? Until now, South Korea has adopted a gradual and step-by-step approach to the issue regarding Korean unification on the logical basis of ‘integration before unification.’

In other words, ‘(low-level) integration → unification → (high-level) integration.’

This reflects the position that a ‘de facto’ unification should first be promoted through the integration of a communitarian lifestyle prior to a ‘legal and institutional (de jure)’ unification.

Based on this logic, inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation have been emphasized in order to integrate economic and socio-cultural sectors and the need for peace establishment has been magnified to enlarge such exchange and cooperation.

Then about how to deal with Kim and his cronies ?

the regime evolution of North Korea should be induced and changes in political leadership should be pursued. To this end, an ‘exit’ should be provided to ease the anxiety over the future for the North Korea’s ruling elites.

Why ?

It has been long since North Korea’s ruling elites have lost the will and capability to be responsible for the survival and future of its people. Thus, we cannot but put efforts to take responsibility for the lives and future of our North Korean compatriots

[Double Edge]

Kim said "denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula could be achieved when South Korea and the U.S. would respond to our efforts with good intention and stable atmosphere for promoting peace is created through a series of progressive and synchronous measures.”

What does "progressive and synchronous measures” mean ? From KINU

Road Map to Peace on the Korean Peninsula.pdf | KINU | Jun 07 2018

there are two types of settlement methods; a ‘partial settlement’ on a specific agenda, and a comprehensive ‘package settlement’ for multiple agendas ― the so-called ‘one-shot’ solution. President Moon Jae-in has insisted the latter and so has the Trump administration. Chairman Kim Jong-un has also expressed his support for a comprehensive package settlement. Therefore, it seems evident that thus far all three parties have neither expressed any differing opinions on a method of settlement nor refused a package settlement.

What is important is the implementation process after a package settlement, through which denuclearization · signing of a peace treaty · normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations can be agreed upon in the North Korea-U.S. summit. The three main scenarios can be analyzed as follows

Type 1: Denuclearization first and ensuring the survival of the regime later (peace treaty · normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations)
Not applicable

Type 2: Synchronous implementation of denuclearization - signing of a peace treaty - normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations

Measures for implementation of denuclearization · signing of a peace treaty · normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations can be simultaneously carried out step-by-step. Each track can be gradually and synchronously implemented in a certain order with the possible slight time lags in between implementation. This is what Kim Jong-un meant by a progressive and synchronous implementation.

Type 3: Reverse-synchronous implementation of normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations · signing of a peace treaty-denuclearization

In this case, the order of implementation will be reversed. Measures for normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations and negotiations for signing a peace treaty will be carried out first, followed by measures for denuclearization. The order will be arranged in a reversed manner compared to the U.S. usual denuclearization-first approach. This method, too, will be synchronously implemented. The only difference lies in the fact that the incentives associated with the security guarantee of the North Korean regime will be given first in order to clearly give the North a motivation for denuclearization.

In fact, those 3 types of implementation methods, contrary to the settlement methods, are hard to be achieved in ‘one-shot,’ and should be carried out in a progressive manner according to respective action plans. To that end, Kim Jong-un’s mentioning of progressive and synchronous measures resembles the above explained Type 2 and Type 3 in terms of implementation methods. His approach also reflects reasonable and realistic aspects so it does not conflict with South Korea’s approach.

The paper then advocates declaring peace so as to create momentum to either a type 2 or 3 type settlement that is time bound, within 60 days say, otherwise...

after a package settlement, discussing and agreeing upon a general implementation road map generally takes up too much time. This fast pace will allow for a prompt formulation of working group for the initial measures and speedy progress of the future action plans. Same approach could also be included in the agreement at the North Korea-U.S. summit. In the end, it is a strategy utilizing ‘Declaration for Peace on the Korean Peninsula’ as a momentum that links an implementation road map with the inter-Korean summit and the North Korea-U.S. summit.

[Bigfella]

Reunification only happens when the Kim family is removed from power or takes control of the whole peninsula. Neither seems likely in the short term. Even if the first happens AND China gets out of the way it is not an easy road.

[Double Edge]

Disarm in exchange for what ? that is the part that needs to be hashed out and will be lengthy. Right now its a freeze for freeze

I don't think China getting books to IAEA standards in just 5 years is at all relevant because there never was a denuclearise condition imposed on China to begin with. China got to keep nukes and if the path to normalisation meant swift compliance with international standards then the incentive to get it done was there.

As for accounting getting NK to declare what they have ? maybe conditions could be created to allow that declaration. It would yield more info than is currently known which would then have to be verified in compliance with whatever agreements are made

The part i'm still mulling is reunification. That's another overloaded word like denuclearisation. What does reunification mean. At the simplest level it could mean better relations and trade with the south and then follow whatever is agreeable by Korean Institute for National Unification (KINU)

Who benefits from reunification, long term? If its done on NK terms China benefits, if the south gets its way then Japan. But this is short term only.

Long term both China & Japan are less well off.

Korea comes together after a short separation. You would think the US would be better off but its not clear how the alliance with Korea stands at that point.