Norks' New Strategy?

[taxi1]

Or carefully calculated to appear as such.

I’ll say it differently. Their preference structure for what is good to do and bad to do is alien to us.

 

[Mirage]

By “ignoring” them, are you suggesting we withdraw our forces from South Korea, stop training with our Pacific allies, stop contributing to theater BMD? What else have we done to antagonize the peaceful mountain kingdom?

What I'm suggesting is that we do something like what Trump may have been starting to do. Normalize relations with them and make it clear they are not under any threat of our attack, but that if they attack our allies in any way, we will annihilate them. Then, make it clear to our allies that they can count on us in war, but until then, they're on their own. Maybe point out the insane GDP and capability gap they enjoy with access to our weaponry, and how they don't need us. We'll still train with them in less provocative ways (ie, no mock invasions off the NK coast).

Being a rational actor, NK will still not attack anyone, and actually be less likely to do so as they will see they are not in danger of our attacking them first. We will profit by not spending money there unnecessarily and maybe even gaining a trade partner, we will stop pushing NK into the arms of China and Russia, tensions will be decreased in the region, the NK military will eventually likely scale back, helping our position vis-a-vis China, the humanitarian situation in NK will be improved, and there will be less risk of a nuke blowing up somewhere. Lots to gain by ending our paranoia of NK and thereby encouraging them to do the same.

 

[croakerfish]

What I'm suggesting is that we do something like what Trump may have been starting to do. Normalize relations with them and make it clear they are not under any threat of our attack, but that if they attack our allies in any way, we will annihilate them. Then, make it clear to our allies that they can count on us in war, but until then, they're on their own. Maybe point out the insane GDP and capability gap they enjoy with access to our weaponry, and how they don't need us. We'll still train with them in less provocative ways (ie, no mock invasions off the NK coast).

Being a rational actor, NK will still not attack anyone, and actually be less likely to do so as they will see they are not in danger of our attacking them first. We will profit by not spending money there unnecessarily and maybe even gaining a trade partner, we will stop pushing NK into the arms of China and Russia, tensions will be decreased in the region, the NK military will eventually likely scale back, helping our position vis-a-vis China, the humanitarian situation in NK will be improved, and there will be less risk of a nuke blowing up somewhere. Lots to gain by ending our paranoia of NK and thereby encouraging them to do the same.

So the punchline here is that you want to decrease the military strength of the countries that are opposing China’s expansionist policies in the Pacific by throttling our contribution.

I think that hoping NK turns out to simply be making defensive plays this whole time, despite almost 75 years of experience suggesting otherwise, and betting regional security on it, is a bad idea.

 

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

What I'm suggesting is that we do something like what Trump may have been starting to do. Normalize relations with them and make it clear they are not under any threat of our attack, but that if they attack our allies in any way, we will annihilate them. Then, make it clear to our allies that they can count on us in war, but until then, they're on their own. Maybe point out the insane GDP and capability gap they enjoy with access to our weaponry, and how they don't need us. We'll still train with them in less provocative ways (ie, no mock invasions off the NK coast).

Being a rational actor, NK will still not attack anyone, and actually be less likely to do so as they will see they are not in danger of our attacking them first. We will profit by not spending money there unnecessarily and maybe even gaining a trade partner, we will stop pushing NK into the arms of China and Russia, tensions will be decreased in the region, the NK military will eventually likely scale back, helping our position vis-a-vis China, the humanitarian situation in NK will be improved, and there will be less risk of a nuke blowing up somewhere. Lots to gain by ending our paranoia of NK and thereby encouraging them to do the same.

I’m not sure anyone would disagree with having a “normal” North Korea being an improvement on the status quo, but nation-states are not rational entities despite our attempt to make them so. Strategic stupidity might as well be the original sin of any given country at this point. After all, “Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal”.

 

[Mirage]

So the punchline here is that you want to decrease the military strength of the countries that are opposing China’s expansionist policies in the Pacific by throttling our contribution.

I think that hoping NK turns out to simply be making defensive plays this whole time, despite almost 75 years of experience suggesting otherwise, and betting regional security on it, is a bad idea.

Quite the opposite. Making clear to ROK and Japan that their defense is first and foremost their responsibility would likely cause them to grow their militaries and strengthen our alliances' overall military strength.

Who has NK invaded in the last 75 years? What makes you think my plan would cause them to suddenly commit suicide by invading SK? Do you really think it's our relatively small presence on the peninsula that has deterred them all these years, and not the full force of our military that is not present and would still be in play?

 

[Mirage]

View attachment 39752

I’m not sure anyone would disagree with having a “normal” North Korea being an improvement on the status quo, but nation-states are not rational entities despite our attempt to make them so. Strategic stupidity might as well be the original sin of any given country at this point. After all, “Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal”.

States acting rationally is one of the bedrocks of all game theory and political science more generally. In general, throughout history, if a country seems to have done something irrational, it's because you don't understand something they actually made it rational.

 

[TacticalTater]

I recommend Arms & Influence, as well as well as Strategy & Arms Control. This is absolutely mainstream thinking and was one of the central tenets of our Cold War nuclear weapons strategy. They're short reads.

To summarize, the goal of a first strike is to eliminate/minimize any retaliatory strike, while also reducing your adversary's conventional force. In a perfect world, a first strike eliminates 100% of your adversary's nuclear and conventional forces, and you win the nuclear war. Don't lose sight of the fact that this is a theoretical framework, not a TTP or doctrine. It is the basis for several other tangential themes, like arms control, confidence building measures, and force structure decisions (like our nuclear triad).

How would we legitimately threaten NK with a nuclear first strike with Russia and China on their border,. If we launched in the "dark" both countries would immediately be on edge as the weapon would be headed in their general direction and if we told either country its a bluff they would simply tell NK so I don't understand how to make the "threat" credible.

And at the end of the day NK doesn't seem to care about common sense anyway so probably all moot.

 

[Brett327]

How would we legitimately threaten NK with a nuclear first strike

Again, nobody is suggesting that the US do that.

 

[TacticalTater]

Again, nobody is suggesting that the US do that.

Understood, isn't this the very issue we had during the actual Korean War war where DC was telling us to bomb half a bridge to avoid drawing in other players. Any legitimate threat to Nk has to come from someone other than the US

 

[Random8145]

I’ll say it differently. Their preference structure for what is good to do and bad to do is alien to us.

They seem pretty normal to me given their history. To maintain absolute power and keep anyone from messing with them, they must strengthen their military as much as possible and act aggressively.

 

[Random8145]

Quite the opposite. Making clear to ROK and Japan that their defense is first and foremost their responsibility would likely cause them to grow their militaries and strengthen our alliances' overall military strength.

Who has NK invaded in the last 75 years? What makes you think my plan would cause them to suddenly commit suicide by invading SK? Do you really think it's our relatively small presence on the peninsula that has deterred them all these years, and not the full force of our military that is not present and would still be in play?

Our small presence is large enough that it would be considered a major act of war directly against the U.S. if they attacked and killed those troops, so basically it is a guarantee that if they attack the South, the full force of the U.S. will be used. It also allows our military to train with the South Koreans.

 

[BigRed389]

Quite the opposite. Making clear to ROK and Japan that their defense is first and foremost their responsibility would likely cause them to grow their militaries and strengthen our alliances' overall military strength.

Who has NK invaded in the last 75 years? What makes you think my plan would cause them to suddenly commit suicide by invading SK? Do you really think it's our relatively small presence on the peninsula that has deterred them all these years, and not the full force of our military that is not present and would still be in play?

If NK were the only player on the other side this could be an interesting theoretical.

The close presence of the PRC throws it off completely.

As is, both the ROK and Japan already have very heavy investments into defense. Particularly compared to say…Europe.

 

[Brett327]

Understood, isn't this the very issue we had during the actual Korean War war where DC was telling us to bomb half a bridge to avoid drawing in other players. Any legitimate threat to Nk has to come from someone other than the US

No, it isn’t like that at all.

 

[croakerfish]

Quite the opposite. Making clear to ROK and Japan that their defense is first and foremost their responsibility would likely cause them to grow their militaries and strengthen our alliances' overall military strength.

Who has NK invaded in the last 75 years? What makes you think my plan would cause them to suddenly commit suicide by invading SK? Do you really think it's our relatively small presence on the peninsula that has deterred them all these years, and not the full force of our military that is not present and would still be in play?

Japan and SK are already working overtime to improve their capabilities. Expecting them to just suddenly jump up to the major league if we suddenly cut back is libertarianism-level magical thinking.

Sure, North Korea hasn’t invaded across the freaking DMZ since we turned it into the most intensely fortified border in existence. I’m not sure that says anything about their desires or goals. Who else would they invade, China or Russia?
But hey you’re right, we keep shooting missiles into their airspace, sending commandos through secret tunnels to attack soldiers and cops, and kidnapping their citizens abroad so it makes sense that they feel threatened. Oh wait that was them.

List of border incidents involving North and South Korea - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

To me, it seems like you are making some arguments and then treat your untested conclusions as rock-solid assumptions for further arguments. We can’t possibly know if the Kim regime is or isn’t rational. For all we KNOW China has a kill switch implanted in Kim Jong Un’s head to make sure he doesn’t go rogue, or maybe he is shorting stocks through a shell corporation.
One thing we do know is that the Mexican standoff has been mostly working since the 50’s.

 

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

States acting rationally is one of the bedrocks of all game theory and political science more generally. In general, throughout history, if a country seems to have done something irrational, it's because you don't understand something they actually made it rational.

Hi! Poly Sci major. Totally get that. Also get that that this bedrock is bullshit. Games theory is useful. Also emphasis on theory.

So much blood, sweat and tears have been spent throughout history on one side’s inability to rectify the fact that their enemy isn’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing (us included). And that’s fucking confusing…Stay predictable so I can kill you damnit! Lots of energy gets focused on things having to go to plan or to policy instead of adapting to the facts on the ground.

You’re also proving Heinlein right in your last sentence there. What is rational to one asshole may not be rational to another. And that’s almost always revealed after the fact, after a lot of folks have died.