Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
That's a simplistic look at the situation. For NK, having a nuclear deterrent is the end game. You can "diplomacy" all you want, but that's what they will work towards, because that's by far the best card that they can possibly get a this point. You might slow it down, but eventually they'll make it happen. We don't have a lot of leverage here. It's not like we can hurt their economy by slapping on sanctions. NK is run by very, very selfish, cruel people who have repeated proven that they are willing to starve their own citizens if that's what it takes to keep their stranglehold on their country.
On one hand the US can keep the status quo, and let China deal with their nuclear weapons program. That avoids a costly and deadly war that will probably kickstart a global recession. On the other hand, there's no telling how stable the Kim's regime will be in the long term. A nuclear armed dictatorship with an internal power struggle could be a lot worse than dealing with the problem up front.
Ideally China would step up their game, but I think they are still in denial because they don't want to deal with refugees and they don't want a US friendly country on their boarder.
On one hand the US can keep the status quo, and let China deal with their nuclear weapons program. That avoids a costly and deadly war that will probably kickstart a global recession. On the other hand, there's no telling how stable the Kim's regime will be in the long term. A nuclear armed dictatorship with an internal power struggle could be a lot worse than dealing with the problem up front.
Ideally China would step up their game, but I think they are still in denial because they don't want to deal with refugees and they don't want a US friendly country on their boarder.
What basis do you have to say that's North Korea's end game? I've found a few sources which claim North Korea is open to disarmament.
Originally posted by Eversor:
I didn't find in what you wrote an explanation of what you meant by American aggression. Except maybe, for this, which seemed only to confirm my interpretation of your view that America is the perpetual antagonist, and other countries merely take defensive postures in response to American aggression, which the US media describes to the American public as aggression.
Do shows of strength count as American aggression? That's what I was trying to get at, because the U.S. afaik isn't doing much besides that.
Originally posted by Eversor:
This is an especially strange thing to cite, because the headline of the CNN article is: "US bombers fly over Korean Peninsula in response to N. Korea's ICBM test" (italics mine). That is, the US bomber fly over wasn't an unprovoked act of aggression. It was part of a reciprocal cycle of proportionate call and response engagement.
Well frankly I think you're being a little pedantic about sourcing here, because I believe I was only using that source to argue that the bombing runs are indeed displays of strength; I wasn't trying to use it as a single source for every point. However, there are also sources about unprovoked demonstrations.
As well, you can read in this:
(From North Korea and Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia)
The U.S. likes flying nuclear-capable bombers during defensive training exercises. A nuclear-capable bomber isn't a defensive item, and this is part of what angers North Korea. This book also makes it clear that North Korea ramps up its rhetoric after the demonstrations, not before.
Originally posted by Eversor:
So I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that, if the US backed down and stopped carrying out actions that are its deterrent against NK changing the status quo, that the broader situation would improve, and therefore the US is somehow at fault for perpetuating the problem?
No, we should allow China to broker a deal between the two countries to set up firm limits on North Korean nuclear and missile development and limits on what sort of U.S.-Korean training exercises should be allowed. This is a good first step towards lowering tensions in the region.
Is the U.S. at fault? Like, solely? No. It's just as Jon`C said.