~ North Korea ... ~

[~ Gheb ~]

The relationship between North Korea and (pretty much) the rest of the world has never been good. Conflicts with South Korea and the USA were and are nothing special - there are many known cases of hostile acts like the Korean War (1905 - 1953) and the isolation of North Korea in general: Not only are the human rights not accepted but according to Amnesty International they're also actively violated, especially under the administration of the current dictator Kim Jong-Il. Tortures or even executions of fugitives, who tried to escape either to China or South Korea aren't secrets anymore.
Now, North Korea is starting again to become the center of a conflict - potentially a massive one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/31/north-korea-missile-tests-washington

North Korea has test-fired six missiles since detonating a nuclear device on Monday, with the latest being a short-range missile launch on Friday.
According to the South Korean news agency Yonhap, spy satellites have captured images that show the country is busy preparing more tests.
The images appear to show an intercontinental ballistic missile being moved by train from the capital to a launch pad at Musudan-ri in the north-east of the country. The missile is thought to be a Taepodong-2, which is in theory capable of hitting US soil. The missile could be launched within two weeks.
In a statement, North Korea denounced its critics as "hypocrites" and warned of "adopting self-defensive countermeasures" if action were taken against it at the UN.

As we all know North Korea is in posession of nuclear weapons as well. It's safe to assume that such weapons aren't used for self-defensive purposes. Another conflict - this time it may even be a major one - with North Korea is not out of the question looking at the circumstances.

What do you think we can expect?

Will there be an open war or will the conflict ease over time again? Will there be a conflict at all? How far do you think Kim Jong-Il will go when it comes down to a war? Do we have to fear the use of nuclear weapons? Will there be a way to prevent a war and to stop Kim Jong-Il?

While North Korea has a strong military force it's economy is too weak to withstand the pressure of a war that might rage for years. On the other hand it's unrealistic to assume that you can outright "win" a war against North Korea without ridicoulus losses that nobody wants to take. For that reason I think it will more come down to a cold war-style arms race than to an open conflict although I'm sure that Kim Jong-Il is ruthless enough to potentially use nuclear weapons. While he's capable of doing something like that I think he's also aware that he can't afford to do something like that. But who knows....

 

[KrazyGlue]

I can finally use my Model UN experience in the DH...
__________________________

Honestly, I think you're right that North Korea may be willing to use the bomb. I, however, don't think they're dumb enough to do so, as they know they will come under huge international scrutiny and possibly face large economic sanctions. I think the best thing we can do to prevent this missile from being fired is to simply make in clear (through the UN) that there will be severe economic consequences if the weapon is fired. Comments like those won't provoke them, but they will also give them enough fear so that they won't fire the missile.

Obviously North Korea has plenty of humanitarian issues, but the missile is currently the bigger immediate concern.

 

[Darxmarth23]

North Korea has always been a threat to world interest.

The only way I see that North Korea is capable of being prevented in the future, is by technological advances. There is no real way to turn NK over unless you have a revolution.

But that may stir up some things.

 

[Nysyarc]

I don't see how any country, be it North Korea or anywhere else, would use missiles of that kind of strength or nuclear weapons as an initial attack. Unless some other nation first threatens them with something, they have no reason to use the missiles. The question though is how long do we let them stay within their confined nation creating and testing weapons of war? I don't know about you guys but I don't like the idea of any country having weapons of mass destruction, let alone a country that is as isolated as North Korea.

I think we can except something similar to the Cold War. North Korea will not attack unless they are threatened, and so it would be wise of the rest of the world to stay out of their way for now. If they do have the intention to strike first and start a war, they will have most of the entire globe opposing them. Somehow I think even Kim Jong-Il isn't dumb enough to set something like that in motion, the odds are enormously against him.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I don't see how any country, be it North Korea or anywhere else, would use missiles of that kind of strength or nuclear weapons as an initial attack. Unless some other nation first threatens them with something, they have no reason to use the missiles.

Agreed, it's almost certain they're just using the weapons as a way of saying "leave us alone or else".

The question though is how long do we let them stay within their confined nation creating and testing weapons of war? I don't know about you guys but I don't like the idea of any country having weapons of mass destruction, let alone a country that is as isolated as North Korea.

The best solution isn't to try to enforce anything; that will just provoke them. Like I said, we should simply make it clear that there will be major consequences if they use the weapons.

 

[SkylerOcon]

There should be no worries of Nuclear War. Now that many countries have them, nuclear weapons have been obsoleted. If a country uses a nuke, they in turn will be nuked by the previously nuked country and it's allies, and destroyed. It's a permanent stalemate. If a country is stupid enough to use a nuke, it's their own death wish.

It's very similar to the Cold War in the sense that the US has missiles pointed at somebody (and that country is pointing back). Just, no proxy wars have happened yet.

 

[ArcPoint]

However, once someone has a solid defense against nukes, AND nukes, then we have a problem. So let's say for example North Korea has a nuclear defense as well.... they could send a nuke without fear of retaliation.

Just a thought.

 

[Aesir]

However, once someone has a solid defense against nukes, AND nukes, then we have a problem. So let's say for example North Korea has a nuclear defense as well.... they could send a nuke without fear of retaliation.

Just a thought.

Lol I'm pretty sure NK scientists haven't tapped into Gundam technology yet, it's kind of hard to stop a huge fireball that rains down from the sky. What many people don't realize is NK's main export is AMRS, the threat isn't NK using it because they won't. The threat is who they're gonna sell it to, that's the risk.

But fighting NK with a military is just dumb, this is when Obama needs to show us what he meant by getting out of the Iraq war mentality.

 

[zrky]

It's very similar to the Cold War in the sense that the US has missiles pointed at somebody (and that country is pointing back). Just, no proxy wars have happened yet.

Exactly. NK has been threatening the U.S. and the world for a very long time, and what have they done? Nothing. NK isn't really a worry, because thanks to the Global economy and most countries being allied with many others. So if there is a nuclear war, a country would defend it's friend, and the friend of a friend, and so on, NK is pretty much left alone. So in the end NK gets screwed if they try to launch a missile at another country (especially at the U.S.).

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

North Korea is a threat, but only if provoked, as others have said. They can threaten us all they want, but they aren't really going to do anything unless the US or another country starts something.

It'd be better to present consequences to them like what Krazy said than to say something provocative. Or we could leave them alone.

They won't initiate a nuclear war if they aren't provoked, and most likely they won't even then.

The US has many allies that support them, and the whole NK thing is making most of the world gravitate away from them.

 

[Faithkeeper]

A point to consider is that the US said they "will not tolerant a nuclear armed North Korea". When I read that, I assumed the US implied that there would be military consequences if the North Koreans do arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Is it not possible that the North Koreans could view this as a threat, perhaps even a provoking one? I personally am not experienced enough in international affairs to draw conclusions on how North Korea would interpret this or whether/how the United States will follow up on it's claim. I leave that to those wiser than I in this area. Yet, I felt as though I could contribute to the discussion through bringing up this point, and have.

 

[Nysyarc]

A point to consider is that the US said they "will not tolerant a nuclear armed North Korea". When I read that, I assumed the US implied that there would be military consequences if the North Koreans do arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Is it not possible that the North Koreans could view this as a threat, perhaps even a provoking one? I personally am not experienced enough in international affairs to draw conclusions on how North Korea would interpret this or whether/how the United States will follow up on it's claim. I leave that to those wiser than I in this area. Yet, I felt as though I could contribute to the discussion through bringing up this point, and have.

That is very interesting... the question is 'who specifically in the US stated that'? Does Obama himself and most of the US government agree that they will not tolerate it? Or is it just one senator who has his own opinion?

I don't think NK will take that as a threat personally. Even if they do, there isn't much they can do about it without assuring their own destruction. If the US mobilized the army and actually made it seem as though they would attack, that would be reason for NK to feel threatened. One comment about tolerance without physical action to back it up isn't enough to get them going though.

As for the US following up on that... like I said it depends where the quote came from. It also depends on whether the US actually has some kind of a plan for extricating the nuclear weapons from NK safely. I doubt the leaders of the US are dumb enough to just declare war on NK because they have nuclear weapons... that's just not a good idea at all.

 

[KrazyGlue]

A point to consider is that the US said they "will not tolerant a nuclear armed North Korea". When I read that, I assumed the US implied that there would be military consequences if the North Koreans do arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Is it not possible that the North Koreans could view this as a threat, perhaps even a provoking one? I personally am not experienced enough in international affairs to draw conclusions on how North Korea would interpret this or whether/how the United States will follow up on it's claim. I leave that to those wiser than I in this area. Yet, I felt as though I could contribute to the discussion through bringing up this point, and have.

We say this kind of thing all the time. The US isn't going to attack North Korea, they are simply trying to scare them away from developing nuclear weapons. Plus, Aesir is completely right about the fact that the biggest nuclear threat is not North Korea, but the terrorists that they might sell the technology to.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

A point to consider is that the US said they "will not tolerant a nuclear armed North Korea". When I read that, I assumed the US implied that there would be military consequences if the North Koreans do arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Is it not possible that the North Koreans could view this as a threat, perhaps even a provoking one? I personally am not experienced enough in international affairs to draw conclusions on how North Korea would interpret this or whether/how the United States will follow up on it's claim. I leave that to those wiser than I in this area. Yet, I felt as though I could contribute to the discussion through bringing up this point, and have.

I think the statement is too broad for NK to think of it as a threat.

It isn't saying what the US will do if NK is armed with nuclear weapons, it just says the US won't be tolerant.

Like Krazy said, US always says stuff like that, more of a tactic to scare them out of using them, but I doubt the statement even matters to NK.

The threat of terrorists acquiring this technology is far greater than NK. The terrorists WILL use these weapons. NK is a country, with a central government, etc. and with the global economy in the situation that it's in, it's not really worth it for them to start a nuclear war.

Terrorists on the other hand are already hated by most everyone, and are already underground, so they really don't have much to lose, so they might as well use them if they get the technology.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Terrorists on the other hand are already hated by most everyone, and are already underground, so they really don't have much to lose, so they might as well use them if they get the technology.

Even worse, they aren't part of an organized government. North Korea has incentives to not use the weapons, as they will face huge consequences. Terrorists, on the other hand, are much harder to locate and punish.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Exactly, that was my point.

 

[Nysyarc]

Well if we all agree that NK isn't really the problem, but rather terrorists that could attain the weapons from NK, then maybe we should debate what can be done about the terrorists.

Obviously the 'war on terror' wasn't exactly very successful (and continues to be not-so-successful), and it led to the war in Iraq and other countries in the Middle East. Basically, it didn't work, and it still isn't working. Many terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11, usually just one person with a bomb who blows himself up and kills many innocents with him. This sort of thing obviously can't be allowed to continue, because not only are the losses tragic, it demoralizes the general public.

If, somehow, these terrorists do get their hands on nuclear weapons, the world is pretty much done. The only way to counter a nuclear missile is with another nuclear missile, so if one is fired, several are fired, and several is enough to wipe out half the globe. The only way that terrorists would get their hands on these weapons, that we can tell, is if NK sells to them.

There are a lot of problems with the situation. Obviously creating a blockade around NK is the first solution that pops to mind, but that would stir them up and potentially give them reason to initiate an attack themselves. If enough nations combined forces and actually neutralized NK (basically put them in stale-mate), it would work, but NK would probably catch word of a plan like that before it actually took action, and they would consider it a threat.

I was hoping I could stumble upon a solution, but the more I think about it, the worse our situation seems. Until we devise some way to safely defend against nuclear weapons, the predicament isn't going to improve. The only thing I can think of is if we somehow managed to determine if and when NK would give the weapons to the terrorists, and intervene, striking when the weapons can't be used in retaliation.

This really all depends on whether or not NK is really dumb enough to give such weapons to terrorists in the first place... I can't see any current motive that NK would have for doing that, since it would be obvious, even to them, that the terrorists would intend to use the missiles.

Thoughts?

 

[KrazyGlue]

This really all depends on whether or not NK is really dumb enough to give such weapons to terrorists in the first place... I can't see any current motive that NK would have for doing that, since it would be obvious, even to them, that the terrorists would intend to use the missiles.

Thoughts?

They probably won't, it's just meant to be a statement somewhere along the lines of "don't mess with us or else".

I still stand by my original decision as to how to deal with this situation. Just make sure they are aware of consequences, and do as much as we can to deter them without actually taking any action. Going along with this, a blockade is completely out of the question, all it will do is waste time and resources, not to mention it will provoke North Korea (as you previously mentioned).

 

[Pr0phetic]

Well if we all agree that NK isn't really the problem, but rather terrorists that could attain the weapons from NK, then maybe we should debate what can be done about the terrorists.

North Korea isn't only a threat in those terms, simply breaching an agreement that threatens safety can mean military action in other ways.

Obviously the 'war on terror' wasn't exactly very successful (and continues to be not-so-successful), and it led to the war in Iraq and other countries in the Middle East. Basically, it didn't work, and it still isn't working. Many terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11, usually just one person with a bomb who blows himself up and kills many innocents with him. This sort of thing obviously can't be allowed to continue, because not only are the losses tragic, it demoralizes the general public.

The problem is how do you defeat an enemy who is willing to kill themselves? It's not only a large following, they have some very intelligent, and malicious leaders. The U.S. has a lead in the war on terror, but it's hard to completely defeat it, hell even suppress it for long.

If, somehow, these terrorists do get their hands on nuclear weapons, the world is pretty much done. The only way to counter a nuclear missile is with another nuclear missile, so if one is fired, several are fired, and several is enough to wipe out half the globe. The only way that terrorists would get their hands on these weapons, that we can tell, is if NK sells to them.

This is where the obvious standoff is, no one will use nuclear weapons, not even terrorists. All terrorists have a basis of operation, which is known through out the world, as violence is openly demonstrated.

There are a lot of problems with the situation. Obviously creating a blockade around NK is the first solution that pops to mind, but that would stir them up and potentially give them reason to initiate an attack themselves. If enough nations combined forces and actually neutralized NK (basically put them in stale-mate), it would work, but NK would probably catch word of a plan like that before it actually took action, and they would consider it a threat.

Currently the U.S. and North Korea are technically in a stalemate... Any preemptive actions may start too big of a problem.

I was hoping I could stumble upon a solution, but the more I think about it, the worse our situation seems. Until we devise some way to safely defend against nuclear weapons, the predicament isn't going to improve. The only thing I can think of is if we somehow managed to determine if and when NK would give the weapons to the terrorists, and intervene, striking when the weapons can't be used in retaliation.

Disarmament of Nuclear weapons is the only true way to stop something like this =\

This really all depends on whether or not NK is really dumb enough to give such weapons to terrorists in the first place... I can't see any current motive that NK would have for doing that, since it would be obvious, even to them, that the terrorists would intend to use the missiles.

Even North Korea doesn't support terrorist factions... I should hope.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Well if we all agree that NK isn't really the problem, but rather terrorists that could attain the weapons from NK, then maybe we should debate what can be done about the terrorists.

If terrorists had the financial recourses to acquire such weapons they would've done so long ago. Also, selling weapons like that to terrorists is basically the same as openly declaring war with the US, which none of us (so far) considered a realistic possibility for North Korea. Besides, how do you sell those weapons to terrorists? To get them to - let's say - Afghanistan they still have to cross a long distance, over either China or Russia. Will those countries allow two direct neighbors to posses such weapons? I don't think so.

Selling the weapons to terrorists is not a realistic possibility. Besides, why would North Korea cooperate with terrorists in the first place?

 

[KrazyGlue]

If terrorists had the financial recourses to acquire such weapons they would've done so long ago. Also, selling weapons like that to terrorists is basically the same as openly declaring war with the US, which none of us (so far) considered a realistic possibility for North Korea. Besides, how do you sell those weapons to terrorists? To get them to - let's say - Afghanistan they still have to cross a long distance, over either China or Russia. Will those countries allow two direct neighbors to posses such weapons? I don't think so.

Selling the weapons to terrorists is not a realistic possibility. Besides, why would North Korea cooperate with terrorists in the first place?

Like I said, I think this whole deal with nuclear weapons is just basically North Korea saying "don't mess with us or else". I don't think anything will actually come out of it.

Sweet! just figured out how to put a pokemon on my post!

 

[Nysyarc]

Selling the weapons to terrorists is not a realistic possibility. Besides, why would North Korea cooperate with terrorists in the first place?

I agree completely, hence my last comment. NK at this point doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have a motive to do something like that, so it's not an imminent problem. Overall it seems like North Korea isn't much of threat after all, even if they are in possession of nuclear weapons.

Sweet! just figured out how to put a pokemon on my post!

Lol, I remember how frustrated I got when I didn't know how to do that, and I didn't wanna ask anyone and look stupid. It's so cool though

 

[aeghrur]

Ya know, I'm going out on a limb here, but why don't we actually try and form relations of trade with them?
Isolation doesn't really do much. We're basically treating NK like Cuba, and look how well that went for us.
Meanwhile, we trade with Saudis... and while I don't think it's a friendly relationship, it is one which allies the two nations a little.
The thing is, I feel like economic threats seem much more impactive and useful than nuclear threats.
Economic threats can get things to change such as Don't build this, or else we kill your economy. That's harsh, lol.
Nuclear threats: Don't build this or we'll nuke you, get more devastating effects, and possibly harm ourselves because of the after effects. =/
Just a thought though.

 

[Nysyarc]

Ya know, I'm going out on a limb here, but why don't we actually try and form relations of trade with them?
Isolation doesn't really do much. We're basically treating NK like Cuba, and look how well that went for us.
Meanwhile, we trade with Saudis... and while I don't think it's a friendly relationship, it is one which allies the two nations a little.
The thing is, I feel like economic threats seem much more impactive and useful than nuclear threats.
Economic threats can get things to change such as Don't build this, or else we kill your economy. That's harsh, lol.
Nuclear threats: Don't build this or we'll nuke you, get more devastating effects, and possibly harm ourselves because of the after effects. =/
Just a thought though.

The problem I think, is that NK chose isolation on their own. Their government is a dictatorship and their citizens know next to nothing of the outside world. They are more or less brainwashed to trust no one outside of their country. As far as I know, Kim Jong-Il would not agree to any kind of treaty if it meant, in any way, undermining his authority. The general public of North Korea only knows their own government and wouldn't push in our favor either.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I doubt NK would ever agree to trade with us.

They don't like us, which means they probably don't want to ally themselves with us at all. They are more or less choosing to isolate themselves, by essentially saying "leave us alone or get nuked." They're pretty much just staying away from the rest of the world, and there's no point really in reaching out to them, because in my mind nothing will really come of it.

 

[Darxmarth23]

North Korea is a bomb without a lit fuse.

Some one on this planet has a match box, we just don't know who. It might even be us.

Certain actions cause sparks, such as trade, political incorrectness, and the general threat level of all other countries.

North Korea is smart. They know what they are doing or will do. Just, we need to know the intentions if anything develops.

America shouldn't do anything idiotic and cross its fingers that other countries aren't imbeciles.

...

I say leave them alone. Trade, and relations in general can go bad fast and with a country like North Korea, the results can be catastrophic. I think we all can agree that..

 

[Nysyarc]

North Korea is a bomb without a lit fuse.

Some one on this planet has a match box, we just don't know who. It might even be us.

Certain actions cause sparks, such as trade, political incorrectness, and the general threat level of all other countries.

Interesting analogy, and I completely agree. Even if we could somehow get through to them, maintaining contact and relations with them can only end badly.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Interesting analogy, and I completely agree. Even if we could somehow get through to them, maintaining contact and relations with them can only end badly.

Thank you, and you are correct.

Besides, North Korea isn't just a threat to the U.S interest. It's a threat to many super powers. And Russia still has some good ties(I believe) and they are dangerous too.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I doubt NK would ever agree to trade with us.

They don't like us, which means they probably don't want to ally themselves with us at all. They are more or less choosing to isolate themselves, by essentially saying "leave us alone or get nuked." They're pretty much just staying away from the rest of the world, and there's no point really in reaching out to them, because in my mind nothing will really come of it.

From my viewpoint, it would seem wise to at least try to have better relations. A few people have mentioned that North Korea's dictator is smart. I'm sure the American leadership would at least like to think they are smart, but a thought that keeps coming to me is "What kind of smart individual keeps an enemy when they can have a friend?" And I'm not even saying that it would be wise to try to have an alliance, but some shade neutrality seems far more effective and productive than hostile relations.

I say leave them alone. Trade, and relations in general can go bad fast and with a country like North Korea, the results can be catastrophic. I think we all can agree that..

I am not saying you are incorrect, but please explain. These are not thoughts that would cross my mind, but my knowledge of North Korea is limited. Trade and relations can go bad, but they can also improve things. I would think the potential net benefits of improvement would outweigh those of going bad. Like you said, North Korea is smart. If they are smart they must realize that to do anything that would be "catastrophic"

Spoiler

(I fail to see how they could do anything economically to the US)

to the US would be in the same breath signing a death wish on themselves.... not a very smart thing to do in my eyes...

 

[Aesir]

NK's leader ship is a crazy dictator, he just wants to be viewed as a world power when in reality he isn't even a formidable Asian power. So no NK's leadership is anything but smart, they're actually very dangerous I would actually call NK more dangerous than Iran.

The reason why NK is dangerous is because their biggest industry is arms exports, with such an increase in terrorist activity would you really be safe knowing NK was selling nuclear weapons to the highest bidder? That's not to say we should go in there guns blazing and remove him from power, that's a bad idea.

 

[aeghrur]

The problem I think, is that NK chose isolation on their own. Their government is a dictatorship and their citizens know next to nothing of the outside world. They are more or less brainwashed to trust no one outside of their country. As far as I know, Kim Jong-Il would not agree to any kind of treaty if it meant, in any way, undermining his authority. The general public of North Korea only knows their own government and wouldn't push in our favor either.

That's true. While I doubt they would trade with us... shrugging them off isn't exactly good either. =/ Right now, I'm pretty content with Obama's way of doing this.
Of course, I wanna see the US test its missile defenses on North Korea too. Mutual benefits, they see if they can launch a rocket, we see if we can shoot it down.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I am not saying you are incorrect, but please explain. These are not thoughts that would cross my mind, but my knowledge of North Korea is limited. Trade and relations can go bad, but they can also improve things. I would think the potential net benefits of improvement would outweigh those of going bad. Like you said, North Korea is smart. If they are smart they must realize that to do anything that would be "catastrophic"

Spoiler

(I fail to see how they could do anything economically to the US)

to the US would be in the same breath signing a death wish on themselves.... not a very smart thing to do in my eyes...

I see. But they are a loose cannon as I said earlier. Even a smart country can make a bad decision. They're first one was becoming a commend economy, based off of traditional communism, and becoming a dictatorship.
Also, look at the bolded part below.

NK's leader ship is a crazy dictator, he just wants to be viewed as a world power when in reality he isn't even a formidable Asian power. So no NK's leadership is anything but smart, they're actually very dangerous I would actually call NK more dangerous than Iran.

They can be smart. Just not in their favor. With them, I assume it is sort of like an "enemy must be defeated" thing rather than a "enemy may kill us" thing.

The reason why NK is dangerous is because their biggest industry is arms exports, with such an increase in terrorist activity would you really be safe knowing NK was selling nuclear weapons to the highest bidder? That's not to say we should go in there guns blazing and remove him from power, that's a bad idea.

Response in blue.

 

[x After Dawn x]

What I find especially interesting in this situation is that the UN, nor the US, have done much up to date to try and stop these demonstrations of nuclear power. They've warned the North Korean government not to build these nuclear weapons many times in the past few years, but they've essentially become toothless tigers. Unlike with the situation in Iraq, the US military can't really just march into North Korea without the fear of North Korea's own nuclear fire against them. I'm curious to see the absolute outcome of this situation, even though its conclusion may not draw for many, many years to come. I'd just like to see the way the UN and the US are going to approach this situation with diplomacy when North Korea has rejected these idealisms many times previously. They've let the North Korean government build so many weapons over such a large period of time that they no longer have the means of direct military intervention with the country without suffering catastrophic consequences...

 

[~ Gheb ~]

So the UN security council now decided to tighten their sanctions towards North Korea. All members of the council agreed - even China, who were the closest thing to an "ally" for North Korea so far. Looks like North Korea will be isolated even more unless they change their politics and all...

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

From my viewpoint, it would seem wise to at least try to have better relations. A few people have mentioned that North Korea's dictator is smart. I'm sure the American leadership would at least like to think they are smart, but a thought that keeps coming to me is "What kind of smart individual keeps an enemy when they can have a friend?" And I'm not even saying that it would be wise to try to have an alliance, but some shade neutrality seems far more effective and productive than hostile relations.

Do you honestly believe that NK wants to be allied with the US?

Also, the dictator of NK (like others have said) is very dangerous, almost unstably so.

I believe that it would be hard for the US to move into the "neutral zone" from its more hostile position that it lies in now. I say let NK isolate themselves from the rest of the world, just leave them alone, but still keep a watchful eye on them to make sure they don't do anything that would endanger the US, their allies, or the entire world for that matter.

 

[aeghrur]

So the UN security council now decided to tighten their sanctions towards North Korea. All members of the council agreed - even China, who were the closest thing to an "ally" for North Korea so far. Looks like North Korea will be isolated even more unless they change their politics and all...

See, the thing is, that doesn't matter.
They have no economic stake in international trade, so why would it be matter if they were isolated more? This would matter to some country like the US because economically, we depend on global trade. NK, nope, their economy is already ruined, they couldn't care less. What, we blow them up? Assured mutual destruction. If we nuke them, that hurts us too... in multiple ways. I think that without trade with a country, you really can't bargain with them. =/
Economics, allowing countries to control one another.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Do you honestly believe that NK wants to be allied with the US?

I'm unsure, but it is unwise to have an enemy when one have have a friend. While we may never make it to the "friend" stage, I think we have the ability to make the first move, and see if our efforts bear fruit.

I believe it is universally agreed on (n these boards) that North Korea can't/won't nuke us, nor can they economically hurt us to any significant degree. With these assumptions, I do not see any great harm in our trying.

 

[Bowser King]

I'm unsure, but it is unwise to have an enemy when one have have a friend. While we may never make it to the "friend" stage, I think we have the ability to make the first move, and see if our efforts bear fruit.

I believe it is universally agreed on (n these boards) that North Korea can't/won't nuke us, nor can they economically hurt us to any significant degree. With these assumptions, I do not see any great harm in our trying.

While trying is great but and there is no harm to it but the odds of the US ever reaching the "friend" state with NK is very unlikely.

Still, approaching them for "friendship" will do no harm but would NK even want too?

 

[Faithkeeper]

Still, approaching them for "friendship" will do no harm but would NK even want too?

Personally, I find it irrelevant if they want to or not, given they can't nuke us, I see two possible outcomes:

1) They accept the attempt for improved relations and both sides are benefited.

2) They tell us we suck and they don't like us or something along those lines.

In the second scenario, it will only help the US. I doubt North Korea would be any more provoked by such an attempt, and everyone else will only dislike North Korea more. They will also likely sympathize with the US a bit and get us more support.

Of course this is my interpretation of potential outcomes, but it seems reasonable at this point. Feel free to bring up factors I haven't considered.

 

[KrazyGlue]

If we're talking about our relations with North Korea, I'd say it's worth a shot considering the fact that there's a very low chance of negative results. I do, however, agree that chances are low that anything will come out of it. As Faithkeeper noted, it would be a nice gesture that I'm sure the international community would appreciate.

Also, let's please be careful when saying "Oh, North Korea is already isolated and has a failing economy, so we can sanction the hell out of them and it won't matter. It doesn't matter if they become more isolated or their economy gets even worse." It's important to note that these sanctions are only in place to discourage North Korea from continuing their nuclear program. It's in very poor taste to say their isolationism and economy don't matter anymore. People in that country are starving and dying because of their isolationism and failing economy. Keep that in mind when making these kinds of comments.