War with North Korea

[Silly Green Monkey]

I've heard many times that the war wasn't ended, only paused, and also that North Korea doesn't want the war to formally end. If the US President were to want to end the war, how would they go about it, and are there reasons to keep it at the current range of hostility?

 

[Ziggurat]

To formally end the war, we would need to sign a peace treaty with North Korea. That would require their cooperation, we cannot do it unilaterally.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

To formally end the war, we would need to sign a peace treaty with North Korea. That would require their cooperation, we cannot do it unilaterally.

It's worth noting that this is true per the definition of "treaty".

 

[JPK]

Good morning. Which country is going to sign any treaty with the USA while the Deal Breaker in Chief is in charge? What would make anyone think he would hold up his end of any deal, providing he was actually able to craft one, considering his entire life was spent not living up to his agreements and obligations?

 

[angrysoba]

I've heard many times that the war wasn't ended, only paused, and also that North Korea doesn't want the war to formally end. If the US President were to want to end the war, how would they go about it, and are there reasons to keep it at the current range of hostility?

The trouble with this is who was the war between? Officially it is between the UN and North Korea.

Also, a peace treaty is one thing, but I believe the US would be against signing one, because the next step or even the pre-requisite is a demand by the North that US troops pull out of South Korea and end their mutual defence treaties.

After that the next step for North Korea is a confederation with the South, with the eventual goal being Pyongyang being made the capital of Korea.

The US also has pre-requisites relating to the nuclear weapons programme and human rights.

I think it could be fair to say that neither side expects the other to agree to the demands necessary for a peace treaty.

Some analysts, such as B.R Myers, has argued that the North Korean leadership in particular would lose out from a peace treaty because the entire country has been organized to be on a war footing and that the Kims legitimacy to rule is based on the idea that they alone are able to protect the population from a hostile outside world (notably the US, their "puppet regime in "south Korea", and Imperial Japan). If the hostility was gone, then the people may realize they no longer need to undergo hardship to serve the military first policy of the Kims.

It's for that reason I have sometimes wondered if maybe we should give North Korea what it says it wants. Then see how long the Kim regime lasts without an external threat to scare its population with.

 

[dudalb]

Good morning. Which country is going to sign any treaty with the USA while the Deal Breaker in Chief is in charge? What would make anyone think he would hold up his end of any deal, providing he was actually able to craft one, considering his entire life was spent not living up to his agreements and obligations?

North Korea is not going to sign any peace treaty if only because reunificstion of Korea under a Nork government is a very basic part of their doctrine.
I cannot stand Trump,and think there is no viable military option, but to portray North Korea under Dear Leader as some kind of victim here is more then I can stomach.

 

[Oystein]

...
I cannot stand Trump,and think there is no viable military option, but to portray North Korea under Dear Leader as some kind of victim here is more then I can stomach.

I didn't see any portraying of NK in the post you quoted at all.
I saw at as a musing whether any country in the world (SK, Russia, Japan, Angola, Britain) would feel fine to enter into any treaty with the doofus who signals to all the world that he feels bound by no *********** treaty.

 

[John Jones]

Good morning. Which country is going to sign any treaty with the USA while the Deal Breaker in Chief is in charge? What would make anyone think he would hold up his end of any deal, providing he was actually able to craft one, considering his entire life was spent not living up to his agreements and obligations?

We shall see, but don't absolve the Norks on account of Trump. He hasn't had nearly as many opportunities as they have to screw things up.

 

[p0lka]

The trouble with this is who was the war between? Officially it is between the UN and North Korea.

Also, a peace treaty is one thing, but I believe the US would be against signing one, because the next step or even the pre-requisite is a demand by the North that US troops pull out of South Korea and end their mutual defence treaties.

After that the next step for North Korea is a confederation with the South, with the eventual goal being Pyongyang being made the capital of Korea.

The US also has pre-requisites relating to the nuclear weapons programme and human rights.

I think it could be fair to say that neither side expects the other to agree to the demands necessary for a peace treaty.

Some analysts, such as B.R Myers, has argued that the North Korean leadership in particular would lose out from a peace treaty because the entire country has been organized to be on a war footing and that the Kims legitimacy to rule is based on the idea that they alone are able to protect the population from a hostile outside world (notably the US, their "puppet regime in "south Korea", and Imperial Japan). If the hostility was gone, then the people may realize they no longer need to undergo hardship to serve the military first policy of the Kims.

It's for that reason I have sometimes wondered if maybe we should give North Korea what it says it wants. Then see how long the Kim regime lasts without an external threat to scare its population with.

external threats are the go-to thing for governments wanting to exercise control.
The big threat at the moment is terrorism in the UK, ira terrorism cost far more lives in between the 60s' and 90s' than Islamic terrorism has ever done, but the mainstream media are just pumping out this terrorist threat constantly.
Its not just North Korea that do this stuff.

 

[theprestige]

It's for that reason I have sometimes wondered if maybe we should give North Korea what it says it wants. Then see how long the Kim regime lasts without an external threat to scare its population with.

OK, I'll bite: What does North Korea say it wants? What would giving it to them look like? And what would stop the regime from scaring its population with tales of an external threat regardless?

 

[angrysoba]

external threats are the go-to thing for governments wanting to exercise control.
The big threat at the moment is terrorism in the UK, ira terrorism cost far more lives in between the 60s' and 90s' than Islamic terrorism has ever done, but the mainstream media are just pumping out this terrorist threat constantly.
Its not just North Korea that do this stuff.

Do you think the mainstream media is pumping out stuff about terrorism in coordination with the U.K. Government and that there are no dissenting voices within this media environment? And if so, to what end do they do this?

North Korea can be distinguished from Western propaganda by the fact that the North Korean regime's very survival depends upon a completely controlled media extolling the cvirtues of the Kim family as the only possible saviour of the Korean people from an outside hostile world. Removing this threat is an existential threat to the regime according to this theory. The same is not true for Theresa May's government who have plenty of other problems and issues which are likely to do for them.

 

[angrysoba]

OK, I'll bite:(1) What does North Korea say it wants? (2)What would giving it to them look like? (3) And what would stop the regime from scaring its population with tales of an external threat regardless?

My understanding, imperfect that it is, is that North Korea:

1) says it wants a peace treaty
2) don't know...but as I said, we may see how long the Kim regime lasts
3) in principle, a peace treaty says that the US (or UN) and North Korea are no longer at war - thus the signing of the peace treaty removes the external threat. Maybe they could try inventing a new one - perhaps warn of possible Martian attack, but that seems like a tougher sell than the one they have right now.

The problem with saying, okay, here's a peace treaty is that North Korea will probably not sign one unless its demands for the US to leave, to end its defence treaties with South Korea etc... are met.

 

[theprestige]

No. A peace treaty has terms. What terms are saying we should agree to?

 

[theprestige]

Also, are you high? The people in North Korea don't have unfettered access to outside information. A change in relations with the regime in no way affects the story the regime tells its citizens.

 

[angrysoba]

No. A peace treaty has terms. What terms are saying we should agree to?

Ha ha! All right, I only sometimes wonder it. Most of the time I think it would be a dumb idea.

 

[theprestige]

Ha ha! All right, I only sometimes wonder it. Most of the time I think it would be a dumb idea.

Of course it would be a dumb idea. North Korea is governed by an oppressive totalitarian regime. There is no concession we could make that would not result in a crime against humanity.

Even sometimes, what were you thinking?

 

[angrysoba]

Of course it would be a dumb idea. North Korea is governed by an oppressive totalitarian regime. There is no concession we could make that would not result in a crime against humanity.

Even sometimes, what were you thinking?

I'm not going to apologize for thinking things out loud. The point I am making is removing the central plank of the regime's legitimacy. I definitely think that the goal is worthwhile even if the means is a poor way of achieving it.

It's also very likely that the information blockade is not absolute as it once was. There is a large porous border with China through which information can cross. There can be radio and TV broadcasts into the country, and DVDs are regularly smuggled in.

The goal is to remove the regime - don't get all up on your high horse just because you don't like someone's spitballing.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not going to apologize for thinking things out loud. The point I am making is removing the central plank of the regime's legitimacy. I definitely think that the goal is worthwhile even if the means is a poor way of achieving it.

Dude.

What is the central plank of the regime's legitimacy?

 

[angrysoba]

Dude.

What is the central plank of the regime's legitimacy?

As a military regime faced with a hostile outside world. It has nothing else going for it. Generally, people in North Korea know they are poor and hungry - how could they not? But the regime appears to have genuine support as well. Where does this come from if not by means of persuasion as well as coercion?

 

[theprestige]

As a military regime faced with a hostile outside world. It has nothing else going for it. Generally, people in North Korea know they are poor and hungry - how could they not? But the regime appears to have genuine support as well. Where does this come from if not by means of persuasion as well as coercion?

The regime controls the flow of information into the country. More importantly, the regime controls the propaganda context for interpreting what little outside information does arrive.

Interactions with the regime from the outside regime have no practical relevance to the stories the regime tells its citizens to persuade their loyalty.