What should US policy with respect to North Korea be?

[oberliner]

What exactly (or approximately) is the progressive position on this?

[FarCenter]

1. Are progressives for a two state solution or for reunification.

I think that the US position has been to support reunification and "democratization" of North Korea.

It hasn't worked.

[oberliner]

4. That's a good question

I don't recall any prominent progressives speaking up in favor or reunification, but maybe there have been.

[FarCenter]

10. Like China, Korea was a big "mission field" for US protestants before WW II

So the loss of North Korea to godless atheist communists has been a bitter pill to swallow for US Methodists.

It's like the decades long "who lost China" blame game. I think "lost" originally was in the context of lost to Christianity, rather than lost to democracy or free market capitalism.

Or like the rolling back of Catholicism by Buddhists and communists in Vietnam.

[Hoyt]

2. As to nukes, prefer they don't get them, but it's hard to deny a country nukes when you have them.

If Iraq had actually had WMDs/nukes, we never would have invaded them.

Fact is, we are the only country that has used nukes on anyone, and we've damn sure bullied the world with them.

Otherwise, NK should be encouraged to move into the 21st Century. Heck, the 19th would be a start.

[oberliner]

3. What would be the means by which we ought to ensure they don't get nukes?

It seems like they already have them.

[Volaris]

35. To take them at their word,

it seems theyre willing to let go of chasing them for us just leaving them the hell alone. But, to quote Regan (and yes, you can scold me) 'Trust, but VERIFY.'

I'm willing to leave them be for them not acting like assholes because its a New Place for us to be with them, and it's possible some good can come from it later on. If anyone here is in disagreement I'm willing to listen, but you have to 'talk me down'.

[Blue_true]

19. They wanted nukes because we came within Truman's approval of nuking them.

We need to undo that by signing an ironclad agreement that we would never try to nuke them unless they tried to nuke us. I had two uncles who fought in Korea.

[Hoyt]

22. I agree. Dumb ass trump was talking early on about using "limited" nukes, whatever that means.

[Voltaire2]

5. Normalization. Diplomatic and economic.

That and step back and let South Korea and China, North Korea’s neighboring states, take the lead.

[oberliner]

6. Any conditions on that normalization with respect to their nukes?

[Voltaire2]

7. Nope. They have them.

[oberliner]

8. Obama said: "The United States does not, and never will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state"

You think that was a misguided statement?

To be clear, the United States does not, and never will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state. Far from achieving its stated national security and economic development goals, North Korea's provocative and destabilizing actions have instead served to isolate and impoverish its people through its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities. Today's nuclear test, a flagrant violation of multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, makes clear North Korea's disregard for international norms and standards for behavior and demonstrates it has no interest in being a responsible member of the international community.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/09/statement-president-north-koreas-nuclear-test

[Voltaire2]

28. The reality is that they have nukes.

So we can pretend that they don’t, or face reality.

[grantcart]

12. Rather than stepping back use 4 state multilateral front of China, Japan, US and SK

to maintain a consistent calm approach to normalization with incremental confidence building steps.

[oberliner]

13. That makes sense

I would think South Korea would be involved also.

[grantcart]

14. I fixed it on edit. should read China, Japan, SK and US

[Voltaire2]

29. We have no direct business in this.

I’d prefer that we stopped insisting on policing the world. Japan makes sense as they are effectively neighbors.

[grantcart]

36. laughable as it is uninformed see UN resolution 82

[Voltaire2]

43. We have no direct involvement with North Kotea.

We share no borders. Japan at least shares a body of water. With respect to our foreign policy we ignore UN resolutions whenever we feel like it.

The Korean War ended 65 years ago. Citing that resolution as justification for our perpetual military meddling demonstrates just how bankrupt centrist thinking is.

[oberliner]

11. I would very much appreciate any insights you can share

It does not seem entirely clear to me what it is, and I apologize for my ignorance on this subject.

Can you share a brief summary of what you believe the progressive position on N Korea to be or a link to where I can find a good summary?

[DV1]

16. 50/50

Nowadays, any 'progressive' position is a 50/50 of encouraging fair democracy and maintaining military caution. Provided, of course, that the participants believe in parity.

[newblewtoo]

15. As for me,

I favor reunification. After all the partition of Korea was a result of WWII and the Cold War. It is time to end it and allow Korea to finally begin the healing process. We cannot continue to allow starving people in charge of nuclear weapons.

[pwb]

17. Just leave them alone. The rest of the world isn't worried about them.

We look for any reason to keep spending on useless military equipment when we are having our asses kicked by cyber attacks. Navy ships running into other ships in my opinion is an enemy controlling our systems not human error. Cyber is the war to fight. Our Gunpowder and steel military is old fashioned wasted spending.

[oberliner]

20. Leave the North Korean regime alone?

Take no action against them? Diplomatic or otherwise?

[pwb]

32. Yes. With a warning if they use them against us they will be destroyed.

We completely fucked up Libya . Iraq is a mess when the threat didn't really exist. It's not so much having them that is the threat it's using them and so far since ww2 no one has because they know they will be in trouble. Pakistan , India, China , Russia . Not our friends either and we don't insist they not have nuclear weapons. We can't bully countries. We couldn't even defeat North Korea in a conventional war. Russia and China stepped in and they will again. They don't want us on their doorstep and I don't blame them.
Especially now with trump, our standing in the world is not what it use to be. The world sees we have a dumb pig of a man in charge, and who wants to take advice from a man like that.
Just my two cents. No country should be threatened, NONE. Nice chat obe. Peace.

[northremembers]

45. Some of us are worried

South Korea and Japan are very concerned about them. I live in California and I don't like that they have missiles that can reach us but not Trump.

I agree about the cyber war which has been going on with Russia, China, and NK for years. Why are we behind on this? They should be worried about our hacks into their grid.

[Blue_true]

18. Apologize for us wanting to nuke them to end the Korean War.

Then go from there. They did not open the nuclear genie, we did, our admitting that should open doors.

[oberliner]

21. Apologize for something that didn't actually happen?

[Hoyt]

23. Well, we are definitely the only country to nuke innocent people.

[MicaelS]

30. The Japanese were not innocent.

They started the War in Asia by invading China in 1937.

The Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis. But too many people weep tears for the “victims" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as if the Japanese did nothing to start the war in Asia. The Chinese suffered between 20-35 million casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945). The Japanese forced Korean women into sexual slavery as “comfort women” in field brothels where the women were forced to sexually service, as many as 70 Japanese soldiers a day. In other words these women were raped 70 times a day for yeasr on end. Everywhere the Japanese conquered, they acted like barbarians toward Allied POWS and civilians. The Japanese beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as living test subjects in their infamous biological warfare Unit 731.

For those who cry moral outrage I see no difference between the fire-bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities and the atomic bombings. Dead is dead.

People these days find it easy to take some moral high-ground when they are not involved in a war to the knife for the future of civilization. Hindsight is easy.

Some Generals and Admirals in the field might have had reservations, but when Truman and his top political and military advisors met, there never was any discussion about NOT using the bomb. As soon as it was ready it was going to be used.

[Hoyt]

33. At that point they were starving and beaten. No need to nuke them.

[LanternWaste]

34. It's happened quite often.

It's happened quite often. You seem surprised by a rather common occurrence.

(The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy, Vin Pouliot)

[Blue_true]

37. The American General had the nuclear attack plan set.

All he needed was approval from Truman, Truman refused to nuke a second country.

[Lee-Lee]

24. Sorry we didnt nuke you?

[Blue_true]

38. No, sorry that we even considered it. nt

[GulfCoast66]

27. How about we make them apologize for something they actually did...

You know, starting the fucking Korean War

Before we apologize for a negative action we did not take, if that is logically possible.

[Blue_true]

39. Sorry.

Thinking about nuking people, a lot of them innocent, outweighs starting a war.

But you do have a legitimate issue. North Korea have to promise AND practice not threatening their neighbors.

Look, two of my uncles fought in the Korean War, I wasn't born when it ended, but family recollections from my uncles lead me to believe that the war was not easy, but neither of them supported nuking anyone, as a matter of fact they became anti-war and anti-conflict through to their deaths.

[GulfCoast66]

40. My dad fought in Korea.

One rogue general, albeit a 5 Star wanted to nuke China, not North Korea since N. Korea was defeated and destroyed. He was fired. Americans did not like that war and wanted it over.

And sorry, but comptemplating bad actions never, never, ever equals committing bad actions. Neither legally, logically or morally.

[Blue_true]

41. The general was going to nuke the Kotean side of a mountain range.

The fallout would have killed many North Koreans.

[GulfCoast66]

42. Was...would have.

In other words a nonevent.

[Blue_true]

44. I won't keep arguing this.

You clearly feel strongly about your position on this subject and I am firm in my position.

North Korea started the war, but we came within one approval of nuking their soil and killing lots of people in that country. Yes, we did not nuke them, but we seriously considered doing so, the consideration is used by them for their insane fascination with getting nukes.

I think about places in the Middleeast. One group did something to a second innocent group 5,000 years ago, the second group either retaliated or considered it, 5,000 years later two groups are in a tick tock struggle where neither group remember how it all got started. At some point, to end conflict, one group has to extend a fig branch, even when it is the other group that should do it, if one looks at absolutes.

You feel strongly about this, I expect that you will reply. I won't reply back, but other people who are following can read your reply and make their own judgement.

[Lee-Lee]

47. So let me get this straight....

Thinking about using a nuclear weapon and then deciding against it, so nobody was harmed, is worse than starting a war that kills over a half million people (with some estimates over a million) and has over a million injured?

Is that what your saying?

Even if nukes had been used as was considered the casualties caused would have been well, well, well under the total caused by the war.

I can’t belive you actually think that somehow the consideration of a think that didn’t happen is a worse action than actually taking action that results in 500,000 deaths.

[Lee-Lee]

25. Well, first what should our goals be

Is it the end of the threat to just our nation and allies?

Is it the ending of the oppression of the people there?

Do we only care about the dirt and allow the second to continue, as long as our people are not harmed they can do what they want to theirs?

It’s hard to formulate a policy without clear goals first.

[oberliner]

26. My questions exactly

[northremembers]

46. Goals and choices are not the same thing

It doesn't matter what our goals are. Our choices are do nothing or a real WWIII where billions of people die. The best we can hope for in doing nothing is millions of people will die in North Korean aggression. Most likely we will still end up in WWIII. NK, China, and Russia have all said explicitly that our policy is irrelevant and the US is powerless to do anything.

While it's true we have a paid Russian operative as president our irrelevance began during the Bush administration. The Bush tax policy made job exportation to China very easy which boosted their economy. The tax cuts ended our ability to pay for our own expenses and made us dependent on China to fund our government, including our military. We have to borrow money from China to send our military anywhere. China will not fund a military action against NK, China, or Russia which makes our military a paper tiger. The American Era ended the day we started borrowing money from China.

The only way we could have a serious NK policy is for us to raise taxes to eliminate the deficit and for us to repatriate our production capacity. The entire Republican party is opposed to any policy that would produce these results, but without economic independence we really have no say what goes on in North Korea.

[moondust]

31. Take a poll of...

EXPERIENCED DIPLOMATS and let the majority of them decide. Forget this cultish amateur hour insanity.