NK doesn't have to abandon the nukes to have peace with South Korea. As it has abandoned re-unification, and now recognises South Korea as an independent state, they could move on to a hot and cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other.
Yes, but I guess it was a poor example. I was thinking that technically, they aren't at war all the time. Every decade or two, they declare a war and fight each other, and then settle. In between they even talk with each other civilly.
Why should they give up their nukes? I'd like a rational, logically sound reason they should give up their nuclear research and or any war-heads already developed.
1. North Korea doesn't really need a nuke. That the western allies of South Korea haven't attacked North Korea because it has nukes is overstated. The reason nobody has attacked North Korea yet is because South Koreans don't want to fight a war and endanger their economy. Geographical factors means that South Korea will face significant destruction - missile and artillery fire from NK already can target most regions of SK. And any war with North Korea guarantees the involvement of the Chinese and the Russians too.
2. If we accept the arguments of the west that the nukes are the only reason North Korea has been sanctioned, then giving up nuclear weapons should mean that all economic sanctions on North Korea would be lifted. North Korea already has a reasonably strong conventional military. If the sanctions are lifted, a strong economy + a strong conventional military (along with the military alliance with China and / or Russia) can be enough of a deterrent. Especially if North Korea also behaves as any other responsible nation.
3. Without giving up its nukes, even China and Russia won't allow an independent North Korea, with nukes, to become economically stronger or a democratic country.
4. Right now, the nukes are like an albatross around the neck. Getting rid of them voluntarily can provide immense benefits. NK already knows how to build nuclear weapons. With careful planning, they can resume a nuclear WMD program any time again in the future, if need be.
5. They do not have to give up their nuclear research or civilian nuclear programs.
I think in NK’s mind all of these reasons pale before the straightforward truth that nukes keep you safe and giving them up fucks you over. Libya: gave up its nukes; invaded. Ukraine: gave up its nukes; invaded. Iran: signed an agreement not to develop nukes; counterparty tore up the agreement and attacked. When has a nuclear-equipped nation been attacked lately?
That is also a fallacy. Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them with the exception of nuclear weapons or ground forces.
US ground forces against a country 1/3 the size of China with 90 million people is guaranteed to be a US military defeat, so Iran just realized they were actually stronger than they though. NK looked at all this, and had zero issues in deploying 10,000 combat troops in active combat in Europe, in case you have not paid attention to Ukraine...
If you use even one single nuclear weapon, either as North Korea or Iran, you can be assured of being turn to ashes in the next minutes. So they dont make sense as a weapon, they are more of a status symbol.
> Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them ...
Let's not lose track of the truth in the hubris. The Iranian strategy to immediately target all the alliance partners of the US ("peace and prosperity for everyone or no one") in the region has lead to a stalemate in the war, with both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost. (And as you noted, the US has only used a quarter of its firepower yet). But, just like the Ukranians, Iran shouldn't forget that they are fighting a superpower, with a stronger economy and military than them, and neither Ukraine or Iran can defeat them in a conventional sense, if at all. Any nation can survive against a stronger enemy, as both India and Iran have proved with their civilisational heritage. However, the true test of good leadership is survival without extreme harm and suffering to the people while ensuring the unity of the nation.
>> However, the true test of good leadership is survival without extreme harm and suffering to the people while ensuring the unity of the nation.
You are aware Iran fought a 8 year war with Iraq? With over 1 million casualties, and they wanted to continue that war? Do you remember all the fuss when ONE US pilot was shot down?
Iranian here, you're missing an important point: we're a nuclear threshold state. Meaning we can build weapons in a short manner if need be.
This is the reason the security counsel refuses to give up any of its uranium.. and to be fair, I've had a change of heart regarding this. I think the only true deterrence against a nuclear power state is nuclear weapons. It assures at a minimum that your country won't be nuked.
A big reason why Israel hasn't completely destroyed Iran with nukes is the fact that it's a small country and Iran can take it out. Israel having nukes is also another reason why Iran isn't hitting them as hard, it's to avoid backing them in a corner.
I think that after the current Russia / Ukraine and Iran / US war, it's becoming very apparent to many countries that your nation is only secure if you have nuclear deterrence.
It's not only Iran though. The US and allies (including my own country) accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, 2 weeks after they left quite chaotically the country was back to the state of 20 years ago before the war. So many people died for nothing. So many billions wasted.
And trump can't control Israel despite them being totally dependent on US weapons. He doesn't manage to reel Putin in. The world is in a super chaotic state, pax Americana is really over.
I don't think the classification superpower really applies anymore to the US. And that's mainly because being a superpower isn't only about military power. You can't just bend the world to your will by shooting people. There's a lot of geopolitical goodwill and diplomacy involved too, and the US has thoroughly set that on fire by turning on its strongest allies. The diplomacy is what makes a superpower. The military is just the backup.
I don't think there are any true superpowers anymore, though I do think China is on the rise to become one. Which I'm not happy with but of course that's the thing about superpowers, there's nothing we can do about it.
The Taliban was actually very rapidly pushed out of Afghanistan by the US working together with the Northern Alliance. The real problem was that the US couldn't reach into Pakistan to fully end the Taliban for good. Thus the Taliban was allowed to rebuild and reconstitute its forces over the years waiting for the US to finally pull out of Afghanistan.
But if they had really been a superpower they would have had the diplomatic ties and military strength to do that. I mean Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden himself no less.
However I don't agree, the Taliban was never really eradicated within Afghanistan either. That's why they came back so quickly. In fact even in provinces far from the border they came back every night. Our forces would build a water well for the local citizens, and the same night the Taliban would come and blow it up and rape half the village. They didn't withdraw into Pakistan every night.
Maybe you can restate your thesis here, because I have no idea what you are trying to say. Or rather, perhaps everything youre saying is just so mind numbingly wrong that connecting it together into something coherent just isn't possible?
Deter the US from what exactly? In what capacity has the US been aggressors towards NK that isn't in support of SK or Japan? If anything China props up NK to keep a Western-aligned unified Korea off their border.
Just in case this is a serious question, the US has invaded Iran and Venezuela most recently. The US previously invaded Iraq. What do they have in common? They don't have nukes.
After WWII, the southern part of Korean was under American occupation (it was previously under Japanese occupation, but Japan surrendered to the US). It was the US occupation that installed installed the precursor of current government, with elections which had a lot of boycotts/opposition/oppression. Right wing killed a few hundred thousands locals during these times.
To be clear: I'm not justifying anything here, or claiming that you should share this viewpoint. I'm answering your question: how could NK possibly see the US as an aggressor.
That's also how I see it. If they want long-lasting peace, it will be a nuclear-enforced one. The DPRK has witnessed way too many times in its lifetime what happens to countries that naively give up their nukes. The atom is still one of the best guarantors of national sovereignty.
Ending the war is one thing. Reunion, I don't see that happening in the next decades. Don't forget how much poverty and indoctrination is there. And who would govern the combined Korea? The two governments are worlds apart.
Ending the war might enable them to grow towards each other. But that will take decades.
Not going to happen. China and Russia won't let it happen, since the DPRK is a buffer state. Kim has his nukes and doesn't want to lose power. Basically Soth Korea doesn't have any allies in the area, aside from US which has bases in Guam and Okinawa and has been unreliable under the current administration.
How realistic is this? While North Korea has apparently recognised South Korea, the hostilities will not cease or end from the North Koreans unless South Korea stops hosting American military on its soil. But does South Korea feel confident enough to defend itself without the Americans? As a superpower, is the US willing to forego a military presence in that region? Under what conditions will China / Russia allow both side to repair their relationships? Both China and Russia really upped their ante against the South Koreans, by helping the North Koreans upgrade their military, when they made public their intention to join the AUKUS alliance ( https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3261039/fir... ).
Especially given that the world has now witnessed (In the middle east) that the USA bases are just targets which will not help in defence since the US forces will flee, and the US aircraft carriers won't help much either, especially if NK has decent air defense.
what is south K up too? this has ZERO possibility of happening, is this so this is about some domestic/international politics framing NK as unreasonable and antagonistic so that they can buy more US weapons? or is
the real issue that NK has forces embeded with the Russians who are are learning how to fight a now conventional but ultra nasty drone war and with the US becoming completly unreliable, SK is readying to make a LOT of concessions to NK?
- they can't procure from other places or make themselves?
My understanding is the only things that fall into these categories are high-end missile interceptors and jet engines, with large efforts being underway to rectify these issues.
That doesn't seem logical at all. If it comes to an unconventional drone war, SK is the one country that could stand on its own and even obliterate the NK army. The North Koreans are currently getting exterminated as drone fodder in Ukraine, and I doubt there's very little knowledge transfer back home than what South Koreans already know.
I think the deeper reason might have something to do with Chinese designs in North Korea. While China has been reticent to supply Russia, China will see North Korea as a defendant (even if they are the aggressors), and readily supply them with what they need. Ukraine vs Russia is just China vs China at this point.
> If it comes to an unconventional drone war, SK is the one country that could stand on its own and even obliterate the NK army
And in what world do you think that a war between North and South Korea remains limited to an "unconventional drone war", especially if the North Koreans are being battered?
That depends on if South Korea isn't able to take them out in first strike.
South Korea could take out the first barrage of NK's missiles and nukes with its THAAD system. After that it will be vulnerable. So SK's success in any future conflict is contingent on a successful counter to them, as well as a successful counter-attack that's able to take out all NK missile silos and artillery systems (a combination of drones and air force could do this). But of course, too many variables and South Korea would do better to not take its chances in finding out, and preemptively urging for peace.
there is no logic in War, and the most recent proofs of the statement "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" should be very very evident at the moment, so NK is gaining front line experience and has attaches in the Russian command, NK's entire popoulation are agricultural, they manualy grow food EVERYWHERE, and get around on bicycles, ie:they are all very fit.
Then add in the truely surprising technical acomplishments of NK, nukes and somehow hacking the world from there web site, as I believe they only have one, and since flash doesn't work anymore its half blank.
Also NK has an improbably vast supply of conventional missles and can maintain
a continious barrage across the entire border for months.
The calculations for SK's strategic future will of course involve many other things, and happen from there own rather unique perspective where reunification will be something that both sides cant help but yearn for, and China, and Russia would be indifferent too, or supportive of.
And SK is stuck playing the subserviant host to the US military, which must be great for morale, hey.
NK's population isn't fit lol - they have some of the worst malnutrition rates in the world. On the contrary, South Korea's population is well trained militarily and well-fed, although these points are big nothingburgers in the new age of drone warfare. NK's army is getting ripped apart in Ukraine - they aren't getting any valuable experience to take back home because they aren't returning home.
As I said elsewhere, South Korea's victory requires way too many positives to happen during the first strike itself, else Seoul will face prolonged bombardment or even nukes. South Korea has the capability to do so too. But being a more pragmatic actor, South Korea has decided to go the diplomatic route and urge for peace instead.
> And SK is stuck playing the subserviant host to the US military, which must be great for morale, hey.
Actually it IS great for morale for both South Korea and Japan to have the US military backing them. Part of the reason for South Korea pursuing diplomacy and for 3 major US allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey) forming their own alliance is because they've all lost faith in US leadership if push comes to shove. South Korea knows that after the first barrage by NK, if all of the nukes aren't taken out then and there, then THAAD is useless and SK are sitting ducks.
..by launching missiles at each other just last year?
1. North Korea doesn't really need a nuke. That the western allies of South Korea haven't attacked North Korea because it has nukes is overstated. The reason nobody has attacked North Korea yet is because South Koreans don't want to fight a war and endanger their economy. Geographical factors means that South Korea will face significant destruction - missile and artillery fire from NK already can target most regions of SK. And any war with North Korea guarantees the involvement of the Chinese and the Russians too.
2. If we accept the arguments of the west that the nukes are the only reason North Korea has been sanctioned, then giving up nuclear weapons should mean that all economic sanctions on North Korea would be lifted. North Korea already has a reasonably strong conventional military. If the sanctions are lifted, a strong economy + a strong conventional military (along with the military alliance with China and / or Russia) can be enough of a deterrent. Especially if North Korea also behaves as any other responsible nation.
3. Without giving up its nukes, even China and Russia won't allow an independent North Korea, with nukes, to become economically stronger or a democratic country.
4. Right now, the nukes are like an albatross around the neck. Getting rid of them voluntarily can provide immense benefits. NK already knows how to build nuclear weapons. With careful planning, they can resume a nuclear WMD program any time again in the future, if need be.
5. They do not have to give up their nuclear research or civilian nuclear programs.
US ground forces against a country 1/3 the size of China with 90 million people is guaranteed to be a US military defeat, so Iran just realized they were actually stronger than they though. NK looked at all this, and had zero issues in deploying 10,000 combat troops in active combat in Europe, in case you have not paid attention to Ukraine...
If you use even one single nuclear weapon, either as North Korea or Iran, you can be assured of being turn to ashes in the next minutes. So they dont make sense as a weapon, they are more of a status symbol.
Let's not lose track of the truth in the hubris. The Iranian strategy to immediately target all the alliance partners of the US ("peace and prosperity for everyone or no one") in the region has lead to a stalemate in the war, with both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost. (And as you noted, the US has only used a quarter of its firepower yet). But, just like the Ukranians, Iran shouldn't forget that they are fighting a superpower, with a stronger economy and military than them, and neither Ukraine or Iran can defeat them in a conventional sense, if at all. Any nation can survive against a stronger enemy, as both India and Iran have proved with their civilisational heritage. However, the true test of good leadership is survival without extreme harm and suffering to the people while ensuring the unity of the nation.
You are aware Iran fought a 8 year war with Iraq? With over 1 million casualties, and they wanted to continue that war? Do you remember all the fuss when ONE US pilot was shot down?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
This is the reason the security counsel refuses to give up any of its uranium.. and to be fair, I've had a change of heart regarding this. I think the only true deterrence against a nuclear power state is nuclear weapons. It assures at a minimum that your country won't be nuked.
A big reason why Israel hasn't completely destroyed Iran with nukes is the fact that it's a small country and Iran can take it out. Israel having nukes is also another reason why Iran isn't hitting them as hard, it's to avoid backing them in a corner.
I think that after the current Russia / Ukraine and Iran / US war, it's becoming very apparent to many countries that your nation is only secure if you have nuclear deterrence.
And trump can't control Israel despite them being totally dependent on US weapons. He doesn't manage to reel Putin in. The world is in a super chaotic state, pax Americana is really over.
I don't think the classification superpower really applies anymore to the US. And that's mainly because being a superpower isn't only about military power. You can't just bend the world to your will by shooting people. There's a lot of geopolitical goodwill and diplomacy involved too, and the US has thoroughly set that on fire by turning on its strongest allies. The diplomacy is what makes a superpower. The military is just the backup.
I don't think there are any true superpowers anymore, though I do think China is on the rise to become one. Which I'm not happy with but of course that's the thing about superpowers, there's nothing we can do about it.
However I don't agree, the Taliban was never really eradicated within Afghanistan either. That's why they came back so quickly. In fact even in provinces far from the border they came back every night. Our forces would build a water well for the local citizens, and the same night the Taliban would come and blow it up and rape half the village. They didn't withdraw into Pakistan every night.
No evidence, no reasoning, no logical statement, no counter point...Jesus, what a level of entitlement...
Just in case this is a serious question, the US has invaded Iran and Venezuela most recently. The US previously invaded Iraq. What do they have in common? They don't have nukes.
To be clear: I'm not justifying anything here, or claiming that you should share this viewpoint. I'm answering your question: how could NK possibly see the US as an aggressor.
Ending the war might enable them to grow towards each other. But that will take decades.
- SK actually wants
- The US is willing to sell to them
- they can't procure from other places or make themselves?
My understanding is the only things that fall into these categories are high-end missile interceptors and jet engines, with large efforts being underway to rectify these issues.
I think the deeper reason might have something to do with Chinese designs in North Korea. While China has been reticent to supply Russia, China will see North Korea as a defendant (even if they are the aggressors), and readily supply them with what they need. Ukraine vs Russia is just China vs China at this point.
And in what world do you think that a war between North and South Korea remains limited to an "unconventional drone war", especially if the North Koreans are being battered?
"In a gold rush, sell shovels."
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/why-north-koreas-artillery-threat-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mas...
South Korea could take out the first barrage of NK's missiles and nukes with its THAAD system. After that it will be vulnerable. So SK's success in any future conflict is contingent on a successful counter to them, as well as a successful counter-attack that's able to take out all NK missile silos and artillery systems (a combination of drones and air force could do this). But of course, too many variables and South Korea would do better to not take its chances in finding out, and preemptively urging for peace.
The calculations for SK's strategic future will of course involve many other things, and happen from there own rather unique perspective where reunification will be something that both sides cant help but yearn for, and China, and Russia would be indifferent too, or supportive of. And SK is stuck playing the subserviant host to the US military, which must be great for morale, hey.
As I said elsewhere, South Korea's victory requires way too many positives to happen during the first strike itself, else Seoul will face prolonged bombardment or even nukes. South Korea has the capability to do so too. But being a more pragmatic actor, South Korea has decided to go the diplomatic route and urge for peace instead.
> And SK is stuck playing the subserviant host to the US military, which must be great for morale, hey.
Actually it IS great for morale for both South Korea and Japan to have the US military backing them. Part of the reason for South Korea pursuing diplomacy and for 3 major US allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey) forming their own alliance is because they've all lost faith in US leadership if push comes to shove. South Korea knows that after the first barrage by NK, if all of the nukes aren't taken out then and there, then THAAD is useless and SK are sitting ducks.