Hacker News Reader

North Korea is highly rational? If they get a nuclear missile we'll really find out. Their overblown threats can be tolerated as long as their capabilities remain conventional, as US/South Korea has substantial conventional defenses in the region. If they start making the same threats with viable nuclear missiles, how can we not take them seriously? Or should we just normalize countries threatening to nuke each others' major cities?

Also, the US committed genocide in Iraq/Lybia/Syria? Just goes to show you how little people know of history. I'm pretty sure the US killed many times more Germans and Japanese in WWII and no one accuses us of "Genocide" there, because by the definition of the word it wasn't. And it sure as hell isn't in Iraq/Libya/Syria. Hell what have we actually done in Syria besides provide support to some native factions, launch a few cruise missiles, some air strikes, and some special forces operations? If that's genocide then we're going to need a new term for the holocaust.

Reminds me of the BBC broadcast talking to the Somali ambassador about recent US drone strikes against Al-Shabbab and civilian casualties. The interviewer seemed aghast that the ambassador actually supported the strikes in the face of civilian casualties. The ambassador responded that they were at war, and if they'd sent in conventional ground forces the civilian casualties would have been much worse.

People in the west seem to have forgotten the nature of war. I sometimes wonder if western populations would have the will to fight Russia if they invaded Lithuania or something.

> I sometimes wonder if western populations would have the will to fight Russia if they invaded Lithuania or something.

Let's hope not. I certainly don't think it's worth anyone I know dying to protect Lithuania from Russian aggression. But anyone in Lithuania who wants to immigrate to the US should be welcomed.

> People in the west seem to have forgotten the nature of war.

We haven't forgotten, it's kept hidden from us by officials who do drone strikes and secret raids. War should be abundantly obvious. What we are doing is more appropriately called terrorism because it's focused violence intended to instill fear in people to achieve a specific political outcome. In many cases the desired outcome is removing a leader from power so that one of the militia groups who oppose him can take power, but with little thought to the consequences.

War is obvious and any brave citizen would likely be happy to fight in an actual war that was necessary to defend his or her homeland! What we do today is simply not war, it's high tech terrorism and political meddling.

> I'm pretty sure the US killed many times more Germans and Japanese in WWII and no one accuses us of "Genocide" there...

This is a straw man. Even if we assume WW2 was perfectly justified it is perhaps arguable that the US used "just enough" force to win. But if you consider the many civilians killed in Japan both through nukes and fire bombing of the mainland, is it really fair to say that the US killing of civilians weren't war crimes? We spend extra money (smart bombs, etc.) to make our war morally clean. But we didn't do that in WW2, we killed as many civilians as we could to break the will of the Japanese to keep fighting.

That sort of moral/economic tradeoff is why we consider a $50 suicide vest morally abhorrent and a $1M smart bomb acceptable, so by that standard the US committed massive war crimes in WW2. To win the war without crimes, kill only soldiers, period.

We've had decades of propaganda telling us that the US was heroic in that war, but war is ugly and men had to be drafted (mostly poor people) to fight a war they didn't consent to.

The difference with the modern stuff is that the US foments political chaos in countries and intentionally escalates violence. The net effect of this is that more and more fighting age people die off. It's hard to say that the massive number of Iraqi civilians killed isn't a useful byproduct of the US invasion. Sooner or later the people are simply psychologically broken from all the loss of life and chaos around them. The US strives to create this situation around the world. It has nothing to do with American values, freedom, enlightenment values, etc., and is simply about creating compliant people in oil producing regions.

The worst part of all this is that oil is likely to decline so much in importance in the next 30 years that US "investments" in all this middle east chaos is perhaps the most outrageous misallocation of capital in the history of the world. If you believe oil is going to be highly relevant and extremely scarce for 1000 years then perhaps the invasions are economically prudent, but we've got at best a few decades during which to reap the spoils of Bush and Obama's war escapades. Money doesn't grow on trees, lots of people's paychecks and future security is being raided to pay for these wars, which are only weakening the US and propping up oil regimes and dictators, all for only a few years more internal combustion dominance.

Why does NK make threats? Because they work. That's rational. They are keeping the US at bay. Obviously if the US could launch a few hundred missiles on NK and make the problem go away it would have done so long ago.

Lithuania is a NATO country. For NATO to mean anything it has to have teeth, and I don't think collapsing in the face of Russian aggression would set a good precedent. If they sensed weakness and gained momentum I doubt they'd stop no matter how many Baltic countries we fed them.

So what, you'd have us return to the traditional "obvious" war and fire-bomb cities to the ground, with long-term and oppressive occupational forces? The Russians tried that in Afghanistan in the 80s. Didn't work out so well for either side. Many more innocents and soldiers died. Why resort to those tactics when drones/special forces can arguable be more effective with less blood on both sides?

It's not a straw man. Genocide has a very specific meaning: the intentional, total destruction of a particular ethnic group or nationality. Not all war crimes are genocide. We can debate whether US strategy in WWII constitutes war crimes, but by definition it did not involve genocide. Nor have any of our actions in the wars since. We were not trying to wipe out all Germans, all Italians, or all Japanese.

I'm not even going to get into the "war for oil" conspiracies. The Iraq war was a mistake, but if we did it for oil then we did a really shitty job.

And North Korean threats don't keep the US at bay, their massive conventional forces stacked along the border do. Their threats merely inflame the situation and make their own position worse. They come off as childish temper tantrums at best and invite direct retaliation at worst, and only serve to make it clear that North Korea has zero desire to peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if, upon obtaining a reasonably large nuclear stockpile, they threaten to use it in order to extort food aid among other concessions.

> I'm not even going to get into the "war for oil" conspiracies.

The only reason the middle east is relevant whatsoever in US politics and world affairs is because of the large concentration of petroleum beneath the sand. Once oil loses relevance the middle east will essentially cease to exist as we know it.

Middle Eastern life has been dramatically influenced by Western intervention for generations, so it's hard to imagine what it would be like if allowed to settle into a stable state. Pan Arab movements are a force of progress in the sense that they create a solidarity movement that is less vulnerable to manipulation on the basis of ancient ethnic and religious distinctions.

> The Iraq war was a mistake, but if we did it for oil then we did a really shitty job.

We wanted to control Iraq, the most important land mass in the middle east, both to project power throughout the middle east and to prevent Russia from taking it. At the time of the invasion, Russian and German firms had extensive oil extraction and refinement contracts with Saddam's government, but the Bush administration redistributed the spoils to US and coalition firms.

Don't tell me you think the US invaded Iraq for terrorism related reasons. At the time of the first US invasion (GW1) the US had normal diplomatic channels with Iraq and the US ambassador didn't think the US would care if Saddam annexed Kuwait. The US allowed diplomatic relations to degrade simply because doing so made selling the war easier. But no serious person would think that Saddam would step down just because GWB demanded it in a blustery (and humiliating to the US) speech.

> the intentional, total destruction of a particular ethnic group or nationality

This was done to Baath party members in Iraq, who mostly happened to be Sunni muslims. The US looked the other way after the forces we armed decided to do it. Sunni are a minority in Iraq.

> We were not trying to wipe out all Germans, all Italians, or all Japanese.

I have not argued otherwise. I focused my comments on WW2 to war crimes.

The US has created conditions in many countries that have led to tremendous loss of life of fighting age people. This may not technically be genocide, but the distinction doesn't really matter.

We go in and destroy infrastructure and create a cesspool in which we arm and pay people to kill each other. It's a sick way to thin a population, and we have all sorts of justifications and silly terms for aspects of it, but it is abhorrent.

As we should have learned over the past few decades, nation building rhetoric and "regime change" rhetoric is nonsense. We destroy infrastructure and then blame the victims when they don't all turn out to be Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, or when they or their injured or grieving family members are less enthusiastic about more suffering after the US-funded regime change effort leaves them in chaos.

It's not just stupid and ineffective foreign policy, it's morally abhorrent conduct that has cost the US significant respect around the world, and (quite ironically) created a reality distortion in the minds of many Americans where American actions are considered somehow appropriate or normal. It's reminiscent of the sort of absurd beliefs posited to N Koreans.

> At the time of the invasion, Russian and German firms had extensive oil extraction and refinement contracts with Saddam's government, but the Bush administration redistributed the spoils to US and coalition firms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq#Ser... seems to contradict you. US companies only control two oil fields, and in terms of gross revenue China actually receives more than any other country. Russia, Malaysia, and China have more service contracts than any coalition nation.

This is almost North Korean propaganda.

>The real question is why the US keeps blustering about N. Korea and why US hawks keep fanning the flames.

North Korea fans the flames by its continued, calculated provocations. You're right in that they aren't crazy: this periodic activity is designed to elicit a response from the international community, and up until the 2000s this worked. Their provocations used to result in more aid being sent their way. They've become less effective in recent years.

>US sanctions have helped NK become an insular place where reality is distorted and basic famine prevents much dissent from occurring.

No, the brutal and monstous Kim regime did that by establishing a totalitarian police state. It's wrong and frankly somewhat racist to strip every non-US actor of their agency.

>Like playground bullies, US politicians need small countries to push around to make themselves feel powerful.

North Korea created the current situation when it attempted to conquer its southern neighbor and was forced back. It has created a nightmare state of total control explicitly built on a "military first" policy. It has routinely and repeatedly threatened to attack and destroy its neighbors South Korea and Japan. The idea that the US is just "bullying" this dangerous state is simply mad.

That's not to say they must be attacked. It's a very difficult situation where either the world attacks North Korea and millions die, or they let it stand and millions of North Koreans suffer while the regime builds up a nuclear arsenal.

And this ridiculous idea that North Korea needs nuclear weapons to keep the US out is equally absurd. The US doesn't invade North Korea today for the same reason it didn't do so for the 60 years since the end of the Korean War: NK doesn't need nuclear weapons to wreak massive devastation on South Korea. It has enough conventional weapons to make a war with North Korea, however short, utterly deadly. Nuclear weapons changes the game in that North Korea can now threaten Japan more fully, and can possibly even sell them.

If you're not a paid propaganda agent, you should be. You do good work.

> That's not to say they must be attacked.

So then what's the point of all the bluster and outrage?

> up until the 2000s this worked.

It's apparently still working. The past administrations have each come into the picture claiming to finally be ready to do something about NK, but have simply continued the stupid bluster of their predecessors.

My prediction is that the US will offer to re-establish improved relations with NK if KJU steps down. This is the GWB strategy that worked so beautifully with Saddam Hussein.

Then, when KJU doesn't step down the US will have an excuse to do all the horrible stuff that should never have been seriously considered as an option, such as additional intervention, arms sales, surveillance, etc.

> Nuclear weapons changes the game in that North Korea can now threaten Japan more fully, and can possibly even sell them.

I think you are forgetting about the mutually assured destruction that nukes offer. If NK uses a single nuclear weapon in an aggressive way its entire land mass would be obliterated within minutes. A rational leader (such as KJU) would simply not do that. He'll say all sorts of outrageous, Trump-like hyperbole, but he won't actually do anything. FWIW we all know that is how a rational leader would behave which is why US hawks try to convince us he's irrational or mentally ill.

The solution is for the US to offer unconditional carrots to facilitate engagement. Totalitarian regimes are aided by factors that make them more insular, and weakened by things like trade and foreign entanglements associated with it. The goal should not be to weaken KJU but to strengthen enough factions in NK who have peaceful long term interests.

US policy puts way too much emphasis on "regimes" and a black and white (frankly stupid) moralistic view. As the US abolitionist movement and other humanitarian movements should attest, regimes improve over time when economic activity creates many powerful interests to counteract the backward ones.

If we continue the horrible status quo on NK, we are much more likely to have accidents due to brinksmanship which could trigger nuclear war.

Honestly there have been efforts to bring north korea back into the fold (in regards to keep fanning the flames)..see the Sunshine Policy see the Kaesong Industrial Region see the Six-Party Talks. These have been largely ineffective and in some cases ended in North Korean military action (see Cheonan). It hasn't been all sanctions and war and bombing. It sometimes takes two to tango...

It’s also “highly rational” for the NK leadership to run a autocratic dictatorship, brutally crack down on dissidents, leave the nation’s people starving, and shut off most contact with the outside world. The regime seems unlikely to survive any dramatic change in political order.

Bill Clinton’s administration tried a much more conciliatory approach, but it’s not like the North Koreans have been especially cooperative partners in renormalizing relations and deescalating the conflict over the past few decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

Overall it’s a very tough situation for the US, because NK could do catastopic damage to South Korea and maybe Japan in the event of a war, but in their current political position NK has little reason to negotiate in good faith.

> It’s also “highly rational” for the NK leadership to run a autocratic dictatorship, brutally crack down on dissidents...

Maybe it is rational. NK situation is very fragile. To keep it they need to minimize risks of some riots or disobedience to the government. I think you are confusing terms "moral behaviour" and "rational behaviour". One can be completely immoral and at the same time highly rational.

> Bill Clinton’s administration tried a much more conciliatory approach, but it’s not like the North Koreans have been especially cooperative partners in renormalizing relations and deescalating the conflict over the past few decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

Maybe I misunderstood something but article you are referring to claims that US take their part in breaking the agreement. I reason from that, that blaming NK in breaking an agreement and marking NK as uncooperative and unwilling to deescalate is just wrong.

> in their current political position NK has little reason to negotiate in good faith.

NK has a lot of reasons to negotiate. But NK cannot let itself to show weakness in initiating negotiations and taking one-sided deescalation steps. Its the rules of deescalation. Peaceful process of deescalation can be initiated by strongest side only, and at least first steps should be reciprocal and reciprocal not on the paper but in reality too, judging by results of that steps. If weakest party try to start it would be the sign of weakness, sign of relying on mercy, and the result of such a try might be the reverse -- futher escalation from strongest in hope that weakest just die from terror and drops all his claims. If weakest party start deescalating it would bury all his hope for some sort of compromise.

There are two options:

#1: Do not intervene. Continue to trust that NK changes course, but in all likelihood NK will continue to build up its arsenal.

#2: Destroy NK. Any arsenal that NK's built up will be unleashed.

It's a game of chicken. If option #2 were to come to pass tomorrow, that means heavy loss of life in South Korea and Japan. In a few more years, it might also mean a nuke in Los Angeles or San Francisco (though it's likely they have that technology even now). It seems possible that, eventually, NK gets to the point where it could become an existential threat to the United States, though this is probably a long way out.

If we never pull the trigger on option #2, would NK ever attack the United States or our allies? That's the big question. NK certainly threatens us, and our allies, all the time. If we're to believe their words, they will eventually strike. We're hoping that they're lying.

Would they respond to lifting sanctions, as you seem to suggest? So far, no, not really. We've lifted sanctions and improved relations in return for promises to turn away from their present course, and time and time again NK betrays their agreement and continues on anyway.

I'm all for doing whatever we can to have a prosperous future for Korea, the United States, and the rest of the world for that matter -- but I'm not so sure it's as black and white as you suggest. There are few good options when it comes to North Korea. Intervening now means an incredible amount of destruction. Yet if we wait, it means even worse destruction down the line. Then again, if we wait, perhaps NK changes course.

It's a horrible, horrible game.

One of the reasons the US keeps "blustering" about N. Korea is S. Korea and Japan are extremely worried about a nuclear armed N. Korea. Likely because N. Korea has been conducting low level military actions against them over the last 50 years, abducting and killing civilians, firing artillery barrages, attacking and sinking military ships, all with the intent of blackmailing ransom payments.

Now N. Korea can only go so far with artillery barrages or sinking military ships before they face military retaliation. But once they are nuclear armed, they could bombard the suburbs of Seoul until a ransom was paid. Without fear of retaliation. Because they've already made it quite clear they really want to use their nuclear weapons, so pay up or get nuked.

So if the US backed off, S. Korea, Japan and likely every other country in the region would immediately acquire nuclear weapons. And either N. Korea stops its blackmail programs or a nuclear war breaks out.

Regardless of whether our nations are corrupt, it makes no sense to consider NK "rational" with all the... executing an official with an anti-aircraft gun because he fell asleep, the cult of personality... Un is volatile. But yeah, the sanctions are useless and just make everything worse. We should've already learned from WW2. Sanctions only helped the Nazi regime succeed.

Watch me make a grand jury disappear.