| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The Western allies in the region are more than able to handle the DPRK on their own. |
China and Russia wouldn't allow them to act on their own, realistically speaking.
| mises wrote: |
| But anyways. America is flat fucking broke. It doesn't matter what IR/SS theory we're going to use here. At bottom, balance sheets are power, and the Americans need to return home and take care of their own for a while. |
This is a more compelling argument, and something to be factored into any action taken. It's also part of why the United States certainly shouldn't act unilaterally in this case; we definitely can't afford a long term stay in North Korea to oversee governmental rebuilding in the present. It doesn't prevent action entirely, however, just unilateral action on behalf of the United States, which is not what I was proposing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
3MB
Joined: 26 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seeing as NK just pulled out of the 6 party tralks and claims it is no longer bound by their agreements, it may be time to slap them back on the terror list. SK is joining the PSI, a good move. It may also be time to impose some real sanctions on them, something along the lines of what Bush did to Banco Delta a few years back. Freeze all their assets abroad, sanction all banks and financial institutions dealing with NK. Intercept all NK ships. The means to put them in a financial stranglehold are there for Obama. China needs to be confronted with a choice as well, because as far as I can see, China is enabling their misbehavior more than anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Act" how? What in the world can be done about the DPRK? You can't attack it without Seoul being "collateral damage".
I see far too much faith in the American ability to being benefit to this situation and far too little faith in East Asia being able to sort out their own mess. We've had a good long time of American leadership on this issue and it has only been getting worse.
| Quote: |
It's also part of why the United States certainly shouldn't act unilaterally in this case; we definitely can't afford a long term stay in North Korea to oversee governmental rebuilding in the present.
|
The US can't afford anything now. Totally nothing. All those hundreds of billions sent abroad to do this and that over the past 2 decades would sure be useful right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| According to one view, North Korea sees South Korea as a rebel province with an illegitimate government whose existence is guaranteed by the US. China sees Taiwan as a rebel province with an illegitimate government whose existence is guaranteed by the US. If that analysis is correct, and some members high in the government of South Korea think it is, then it begins to explain why China acts as it does in relation to North Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| "Act" how? What in the world can be done about the DPRK? You can't attack it without Seoul being "collateral damage". |
Swift, propertly directed military action would likely still end up with moderate property damage to Seoul, yes. That's an issue that would only increase as North Korea moves towards full fledged deployable nuclear weaponry, though.
| mises wrote: |
| I see far too much faith in the American ability to being benefit to this situation and far too little faith in East Asia being able to sort out their own mess. We've had a good long time of American leadership on this issue and it has only been getting worse. |
East Asia has had just as much time on this account as America, I don't see any reason to have more faith in them than in America. It seems like a very agenda-driven conclusion.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
It's also part of why the United States certainly shouldn't act unilaterally in this case; we definitely can't afford a long term stay in North Korea to oversee governmental rebuilding in the present.
|
The US can't afford anything now. Totally nothing. All those hundreds of billions sent abroad to do this and that over the past 2 decades would sure be useful right now. |
Our financial situation is worthy of concern, but I don't agree it is that desparate. The fact is, we all ready have a very expansive military deployed around the world and it will remain that way. Redeploying a small part of it as part of a joint military effort to be followed by a governmental reorganization headed by other parties is not beyond our means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| According to one view, North Korea sees South Korea as a rebel province with an illegitimate government whose existence is guaranteed by the US. China sees Taiwan as a rebel province with an illegitimate government whose existence is guaranteed by the US. If that analysis is correct, and some members high in the government of South Korea think it is, then it begins to explain why China acts as it does in relation to North Korea. |
I think there's a lot to say for that being at least a partially correct interpretation of the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Swift, propertly directed military action would likely still end up with moderate property damage to Seoul, yes. That's an issue that would only increase as North Korea moves towards full fledged deployable nuclear weaponry, though.
|
This is getting uncomfortably close to saying, "Let's risk a fight to the last Korean". That's a very hard sell to the Korean public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Our financial situation is worthy of concern, but I don't agree it is that desparate. |
It is a great deal more desperate than that. The flow of foreign money into US debt, both private and public is dramatically slowing, and income tax receipts are down 30% thus far y/o/y. A significant fiscal calamity is just around the corner. It is time for us all to get used to an America than simply cannot afford the empire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Swift, propertly directed military action would likely still end up with moderate property damage to Seoul, yes. That's an issue that would only increase as North Korea moves towards full fledged deployable nuclear weaponry, though.
|
This is getting uncomfortably close to saying, "Let's risk a fight to the last Korean". That's a very hard sell to the Korean public. |
It might come off that way (I don't think that would be the result), but given the regime in North Korea's behavior, conversations like this do inevitably go in one of two ways:
1) Ignore the problem and hope.
2) Depose the regime.
Diplomacy with North Korea directly is ineffective given their governemntal model and philosophy (and I say this from the position of someone who thinks diplomatic progress with Iran is possible). The only effective diplomacy would be getting China onboard with direct action.
I admit "game changing" events could occur if North Korea was simply ignored that would result in it no longer being as much an issue. I'm simply not certain I'd like to gamble on it. The development of nuclear technology and long range deployment of it by rogue nations is unacceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Our financial situation is worthy of concern, but I don't agree it is that desparate. |
It is a great deal more desperate than that. The flow of foreign money into US debt, both private and public is dramatically slowing, and income tax receipts are down 30% thus far y/o/y. A significant fiscal calamity is just around the corner. It is time for us all to get used to an America than simply cannot afford the empire. |
I disagree that a fiscal calamity so absolute and major that it will erase our overseas military presence is on its way. So long as we maintain an overseas military presence, action as part of a coalition is possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not erase, but decrease. Significantly decrease. The theme of ideas must now adapt to a world where America plays much less of a role in policing. And if (actually, when) the worst case comes to pass, and the US dollar is removed as reserve currency, the US will be faced with some extremely difficult choices. That could happen in a year or two, or possibly as late as a couple decades. It will happen.
The DPRK is only an American problem as long as America is deeply involved in the region. There is a reason that Argentina is not sitting at the table. Argentina could have been, but they blew up their economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Not erase, but decrease. Significantly decrease. |
I agree this is probable.
| mises wrote: |
| The theme of ideas must now adapt to a world where America plays much less of a role in policing. |
I also agree this is true. I don't think that has to preclude joint action in this particular case, though, it's just a big part of the reason why it would have to be a joint action (the other part being American unilateralism in North Korea wouldn't be acceptable to the world community and that America really can't afford a long stay to rebuild North Korea's government; that would have to fall to other members of a joint action force).
| mises wrote: |
| The DPRK is only an American problem as long as America is deeply involved in the region. |
I don't entirely agree with this. A rogue power with long range nuclear capabilities is a world problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even if America could afford it, and further if America could find broad international support and assistance (meaning more than the UK, Japan and maybe Canada if Harper is still around) I still then do not trust the United States, after the last two third world boondoggles, to handle any 'action' appropriately. I write that totally without bias of anti-Americanism or the like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| ... I still then do not trust the United States, after the last two third world boondoggles, to handle any 'action' appropriately. I write that totally without bias of anti-Americanism or the like. |
I can understand why you would feel that way. I have similar reservations. I just have even greater reservations about a rogue nation actively testing long range missiles and amassing nuclear material. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
South Korea set to curtail North arms trade
SEOUL (Reuters) � South Korea is expected to announce as early as Wednesday plans to curtail the North's suspected trade in weapons of mass destruction, further raising tensions with Pyongyang after the North vowed to quit nuclear disarmament talks...
In a move bound to ratchet up tensions, South Korea is poised to reveal it will soon join U.S.-led interception of shipments suspected of carrying parts or equipment for weapons of mass destruction. Pyongyang has said such an action would be considered a declaration of war.
The plan, called the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and joined by 94 countries, would let South Korea stop and board North Korean ships sailing in its territorial waters when suspected of carrying arms or other illicit materials."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090415/wl_nm/us_korea_north
I'm having a hard time believing South Korea would actually stop a ship at sea to search it for 'arms or other illicit materials'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|