Saddam and Bin Laden gone...Is Kim Jong Il next?

[Dr Mindbender]

In recent times, the US-UK axis seems to be doing a whistle stop round up of all the worlds 'bad guys'... Saddam, Gaddafi (still pending) now Osama.

Do you think now they've checked off Bin Laden from their list the US will have the confidence and time to potentially invade North Korea and remove Kim Jong Il?

[RedSunRising]

They have the Bomb though.

[Dr Mindbender]

They have the Bomb though.

They may have weapons grade uranium, however theyre probably a long way from having a launch vehicle that can reliably hit US interests. Besides which the juggernaut that is the US nuclear arsenal should be enough to stop them attempting anything.

I am thinking that Pyongyang will predict that with Al Quaeda decapitated the US/ROK will be able to focus its bullying of the DPRK. I can see that leading to increased militarisation on their part which the US would use as a pretence for war.

[DDR]

Nah, the north coreans have no oil, nor anything usefull for imperialism. If the are going to invade something, thing that I doubt highly right now, it will be Iran, no doubt.

[chegitz guevara]

Pyongyang has the ability to level Seoul without nukes. That's a pretty good deterrent to the U.S.

[Dr Mindbender]

Pyongyang has the ability to level Seoul without nukes. That's a pretty good deterrent to the U.S.
Would the retalitory attack by America not be enough to deter Pyongyang in the first place?

I think they'd be willing to call their bluff. I also think Korean reunification on the US/ROK's terms would make good sense to the west. They'd have a straight contiguous railroad that can ferry 1 billion, low paid chinese workers to western owned Korean warehouses and sweatshops.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Unless the US wants to get into a protracted war with a heavily militarised hermit state, threaten nuclear weapons being used on an Ally and really piss off China... I doubt it. Kim will be one of those 'enemies of America' that dies in his own time.

[Dr Mindbender]

Unless the US wants to get into a protracted war with a heavily militarised hermit state, threaten nuclear weapons being used on an Ally and really piss off China... I doubt it.
The thing is, in recent years China has got bored of its little lapdog. Ideollogically China is now gravitating toward the US anyway. If the US ROK wanted to reunify the peninsula, they would likely wash their hands because they would no longer be a liability in term of aid and the trickling of people trying to escape would be the ROK's problem, not China's anymore.


Kim will be one of those 'enemies of America' that dies in his own time.
His son is waiting in the wings who in likliehood is not going to be very different ideollogically.

I think the US is getting impatient waiting for their united neo liberal Korea.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think it is unlikely that war with North Korea would break out, though one can say that more "saber rattling" will occur.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think it is unlikely that war with North Korea would break out, though one can say that more "saber rattling" will occur.
I'd say its inevitable. The global playing field has fewer players now and the USA always needs a 'bad guy'.

[Tommy4ever]

Geopolitics make an invasion of North Korea impossible - not to mention the fact it would be bloody (DPRK artillery could level Seoul within a day) and very difficuly (20% of your GDP buys a strong military).

China will never allow an invasion of North Korea. As bad as Kim is and as embrassing for the Chinese leadership he's better than the South Koreans from a Chinese point of view.

So unless the DPRK does something so incredibly stupid that it alienates China it will be safe.

The best hope for the overthrow of the Juche is a palace coup I guess, and I doubt that would be much better. :/

[Os Cangaceiros]

I doubt it, because:

1) The USA doesn't really care about the DPRK, in the final analysis...there's not much for the DPRK to offer in terms of a cost/benefit breakdown;

2) The DPRK has a formidable military apparatus...not as formidable as the USA's, of course, but significant none-the-less;

3) and there's absolutely no political will for a military intervention. Absolutely none. Zero point zero in the way of potential political capital to be gained.

[Dr Mindbender]

China will never allow an invasion of North Korea. As bad as Kim is and as embrassing for the Chinese leadership he's better than the South Koreans from a Chinese point of view.

Well, an invasion wouldnt necessarilly be the only way to remove him 'by force'. They learned this after the failed attempts to remove Fidel Castro by invasion. If they wanted to badly enough they could use cover means, like plant an undercover team to kill him and his heirs.

[RedSquare]

Qaddafi is the next one to bite the bullet or bomb, since they've already allegedly killed one of his sons and had a near-miss on him. Unless there's a situation of discontent or uprising in North Korea, like what happened in Libya, then Kim is pretty safe. I would also say that other likely targets such as the Castro brothers and Chavez are relatively safe although I've no doubt that they'll continue sewing the seeds of counter-revolution in their respective nations, along with Morale's situation in Bolivia.

[Dr Mindbender]

I doubt it, because:

1) The USA doesn't really care about the DPRK, in the final analysis...there's not much for the DPRK to offer in terms of a cost/benefit breakdown;
...except for the fact, as ive already said it shares a border with the worlds largest workforce and the US's most powerful economic competitor.



2) The DPRK has a formidable military apparatus...not as formidable as the USA's, of course, but significant none-the-less;

3) and there's absolutely no political will for a military intervention. Absolutely none. Zero point zero in the way of potential political capital to be gained.

I'd say Iran and the DPRK are looking equal propositions for all of the above reasons.

We all know the US needs a bad guy and they're not going to stop now just cause Bin Laden is dead and Gaddafi is on the run.

[Thirsty Crow]

In recent times, the US-UK axis seems to be doing a whistle stop round up of all the worlds 'bad guys'... Saddam, Gaddafi (still pending) now Osama.

The world still has a "bad guy": global terrorism. The extent to which Islamist militant groups are global in character and firmly organized is debatable (one user, with whom I tend to agree, assessed this phenomenon as a loosely knit network of independent groups). I do not think that the State Department and the Pentagon are likely to assume like some people did that the war is over now when Osama is dead.

Other thing: Gaddafi was an eccentric ally in the war on terror, and not an arch villain (the famous "axis of evil). It just happened that his reactions to an emergent rebellion/protest made imperialist interests precarious. Not to mention his nasty habit of gunning unarmed men which would really "embarass" his former allies if they were to sit back and watch this civil war.

Back to DPRK: surely, imperialist warmongering will probably intensify, but I doubt that outright invasion will occur anytime soon since the Korean penninsula is less important with respect to the geopolitical strategic outlook which focuses on Middle East and Central Asia. That coupled with a perceived nuclear threat (and we have to admit that DPRK's militarism is not a phenomenon that should be taken lightly, at least from the perspective of Koreans south of the border). If a political campaing on reunification will be launched, I expect China to act as a dominating force.

So, all in all, I don't agree with the original proposition, not unless a total decomposition of Islamist militant groups takes place.


...along with Morale's situation in Bolivia.Morales and the Movimiento are sowing the seeds of reaction as we speak, so I doubt that they'd need outright military aid from the US

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd say Iran and the DPRK are looking equal propositions for all of the above reasons.

We all know the US needs a bad guy and they're not going to stop now just cause Bin Laden is dead and Gaddafi is on the run.

They'll just find another Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, or Anwar al-Alakwi, or some other similar individual. There's certainly not going to be an all-out invasion of the DPRK. There wasn't even one in Libya, a nation of six million that the US military could crush overnight if it so desired. That should tell you something about how tepid the Obama administration is on the idea of a full-fledged military invasion. Much better to engage in proxy conflicts and avoid images of dead US soldiers.

[Omsk]

I'v said it earlier,i am going to say it again,there is no Soviet Union,there is no Red Army,there is no opposition.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'v said it earlier,i am going to say it again,there is no Soviet Union,there is no Red Army,there is no opposition.
Congratulations, you've managed to comprehend that water is wet. Nice contribution. Next!

[Omsk]

Congratulations, you've managed to comprehend that water is wet. Nice contribution. Next!
Any problem?
Most of the people in this thread 'comprehended that water is wet' by saying that the DPRK has nukes,US will not attack them,etc etc.Your post was also,pretty,lets say,a bit of Déjà vu.
But lets not press up on the thread derailing process you tried to start.

I believe that the DPRK will remain in its current state for many decades to come.

(and i see i got negreped by caramelpence for that post,with the comment : "shut up"
Nice work!

[Dr Mindbender]

Any problem?
Most of the people in this thread 'comprehended that water is wet' by saying that the DPRK has nukes,US will not attack them,etc etc.Your post was also,pretty,lets say,a bit of Déjà vu.
But lets not press up on the thread derailing process you tried to start.

I believe that the DPRK will remain in its current state for many decades to come.

Nuclear warheads and nuclear weapons (as in the capacity to deliver a nuclear attack) are not the same thing. the DPRK may have nuclear warheads, but that does not mean they have the ability to USE THEM in anger. That is very important. I dont believe anyone is under immediate threat from a nuclear attack by the DPRK least of all the United States. Their missiles are well out of range of even Hawaii and the ROK or Japan would retaliate without mercy.

I dont believe that NK would dare use an atomic weapon as a defensive weapon. In such a closely confined country they would annilhate their own towns and people.

[Omsk]

Well,if we look at the current military power of the DPRK,it could oppose the US military to the point where they will have to engage with required forces.The civilian population would also be greatly endangered and it would probably fight the invaders,we could have something like a Korean War,exept the fact that the DPRK would not have allies,and it would not fare so well against the US.It would be a bloody conflict.
For anyone interested in a battle plan of the Warsaw pact Czechoslovak People's Army (similar "them vs US" scenario) in the case of a outbreak of conflict in Europe during the Cold War: read this:

http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?lng=en&id=16239&navinfo=25996

[PhoenixAsh]

Its more likely to be Iran...given the current geo strategic situation.

[Dr Mindbender]

Its more likely to be Iran...given the current geo strategic situation.

If attacking DPRK would piss off China, wouldnt attacking Iran piss off Russia?

Arent they good allies or something, not to mention Iran being a big customer of Russian munitions?

[Os Cangaceiros]

...except for the fact, as ive already said it shares a border with the worlds largest workforce and the US's most powerful economic competitor.

The economic health of China is inextricably connected to the economic health of the USA, despite the fact that there's economic competition. Invading the DPRK benefits no one.

[Dr Mindbender]

The economic health of China is inextricably connected to the economic health of the USA, despite the fact that there's economic competition. Invading the DPRK benefits no one.
You say that as if the USA should feel it is morally obliged to assist the Chinese economy. They dont, its sensible on their part that they see it as a threat which is why they would look to overcut Chinese employers. An open border between Korea and China would assist them in doing just that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You say that as if the USA should feel it is morally obliged to assist the Chinese economy. They dont, its sensible on their part that they see it as a threat which is why they would look to overcut Chinese employers. An open border between Korea and China would assist them in doing just that.

LOL I don't think that you're very familiar with the economic situation here. Or the political situation.

The DPRK would have to start bombarding Honolulu for the Obama admistration to launch an invasion.


You say that as if the USA should feel it is morally obliged to assist the Chinese economy.

Who said anything about morality? Certainly a stable economy in the United States benefits China, for reasons totally unrelated to morality.

[Aspiring Humanist]

A North Korean atomic bomb would be held together with staples and masking tape and could never in a hundred years reach the United States. The only targets they would have are Japan and South Korea and I don't think they're that stupid to attack something that close with a nuclear bomb. I don't know how anyone can defend the DPRK at this point.

[Ocean Seal]

In recent times, the US-UK axis seems to be doing a whistle stop round up of all the worlds 'bad guys'... Saddam, Gaddafi (still pending) now Osama.

Do you think now they've checked off Bin Laden from their list the US will have the confidence and time to potentially invade North Korea and remove Kim Jong Il?
The question is why? What does the DPRK have which is of value to the American imperialists? It is valuable from the sense of jingoistic pride of getting rid of another evil dictator but that only matters to those who aren't in control. The bourgeoisie act on their own interest and the DPRK is a country of 20 million people, 5 million of which are either in the military or in the reserves. An army that's 1/4 of a nation's population makes it an impractical target.

[Dr Mindbender]

The DPRK would have to start bombarding Honolulu for the Obama admistration to launch an invasion.



Like i said already, i dont think an invasion would be inherently necessary. All they would need to do is remove Kim Jong Il, his heirs and immediate ideological adherents. With them out of the way it would be much easier to instigate an internal coup de etat.

[Dr Mindbender]

The question is why? What does the DPRK have which is of value to the American imperialists? It is valuable from the sense of jingoistic pride of getting rid of another evil dictator but that only matters to those who aren't in control.
Like ive said before-

1- for the third time, the DPRK is right next to worlds largest labour pool.

2- Removing another anti US bogeyman would practically guarantee Obama another 4 years.

3- In a unified pro western korea, the US could set up shop right next to China. It would be an important outpost for them both economically and militarilly.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Like i said already, i dont think an invasion would be inherently necessary. All they would need to do is remove Kim Jong Il, his heirs and immediate ideological adherents. With them out of the way it would be much easier to instigate an internal coup de etat.

How would that be accomplished, though? Just send a team to take out Kim and his entourage? Lets say that works. Does the USA have some kind of North Korean Hamid Karzai-type figure waiting in the wings to take over? I can't think of one. That's crude speculation on my part, maybe they're in contact with some top DPRK brass in the military, I don't know. If it goes wrong, which is probably more likely, then North Korea will certainly retaliate, most likely against the USA's allies. And that will mean war.

Interestingly enough, back when the DPRK was shelling ROK territory not long ago, the main viewpoint here in the USA and media's coverage of the situation was not "let's go kick Kim's ass!", it was fear that the USA would be drawn into a conflict with the DPRK.

[red cat]

In recent times, the US-UK axis seems to be doing a whistle stop round up of all the worlds 'bad guys'... Saddam, Gaddafi (still pending) now Osama.

Do you think now they've checked off Bin Laden from their list the US will have the confidence and time to potentially invade North Korea and remove Kim Jong Il?

A US invasion of DPRK would be a direct military threat to China. So China would never allow that.

[Sword and Shield]

The United States only attacks weak countries, so no.

[#FF0000]

Algeria's next, after Libya.

Yup.

[chegitz guevara]

Would the retalitory attack by America not be enough to deter Pyongyang in the first place?

Well then, why doesn't Pyongyang just surrender now? The point of a deterrent is to deter. North Korea doesn't attack the South for the same reason the South, and it's guardian, don't attack the North. Mutual deterrent. Of course, if the U.S. attacks the North, it's going to win, and it's going to be horrifically bloody, so the North has nothing to lose by massacring the civilian population of Seoul. Even if the North didn't level the Southern capital, millions of Northerners would be killed, so they don't have any deterrent to not destroying Seoul, which is what deters an attack on the North.


I think they'd be willing to call their bluff.

Which is obviously why we've been in combat with them for the last sixty years.

[Sword and Shield]

Well then, why doesn't Pyongyang just surrender now? The point of a deterrent is to deter. North Korea doesn't attack the South for the same reason the South, and it's guardian, don't attack the North. Mutual deterrent. Of course, if the U.S. attacks the North, it's going to win, and it's going to be horrifically bloody, so the North has nothing to lose by massacring the civilian population of Seoul. Even if the North didn't level the Southern capital, millions of Northerners would be killed, so they don't have any deterrent to not destroying Seoul, which is what deters an attack on the North.

Given their actions in the past, I find it highly unlikely that they'll target a Korean population center. Their artillery is there to engage military targets. They might be willing to nuke a Japanese city (though I'd expect them to try and target our military bases instead), but they are not going to indiscriminately bombard the largest city in Korea.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I hope so I have had enough of people assosciating communism with this wacko

[Omsk]

I hope so I have had enough of people assosciating communism with this wacko

So you are saying that you would like another war? Another NATO and US bombing campaign against innocent civilians? Hundreds and thousands dead?

Maybe this goes with the 'permanent bloodshed' idea you follow..

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I hope so I have had enough of people assosciating communism with this wacko

Ahem...
http://www.uk-songun.com/web_images/415-s2.jpg

[Luís Henrique]

So unless the DPRK does something so incredibly stupid that it alienates China it will be safe.

And in that case, China would rather do the job itself, instead of allowing the Americans to do it.

I think the proper analogy is Georgia. As much as the US would like to bring those countries to their own orbit, there is a limit placed by the existence of other powers like China or Russia. Those may not be able to compete in a global scale, but within their area of influence they cannot be discounted at will.

Luís Henrique