The coming war with....North Korea?

Aetius wrote:

The idea that North Korea is a threat to anyone, especially the United States, is absurdly laughable. Their economy is stunted and paralyzed, and they've required food aid for the last fifteen years to stave off mass starvation. Their fuel supplies are so low that a significant portion of their transportation infrastructure relies on wood gas and steam for propulsion.

From a military perspective, they have virtually no options. The DMZ is one of the most heavily fortified areas in the world - all of the available avenues of attack are well known, heavily mined, pre-targeted, and full of obstacles. The terrain is some of the least hospitable in the world, which is why the Korean War was comprised of static trench fighting for the last two years. Given the virtually guaranteed South Korean air superiority and highly accurate, mobile long-range artillery, there's no way for the North Koreans to extend their supply lines across the DMZ. In short, any attack by the north is virtually guaranteed to be a mass suicide.

The only remotely viable military option they have is artillery bombardment of Seoul, which would last only as long as it took the South Korean counterbattery fire to destroy the attacking artillery or seal the entrances to their firing positions. Since this gains the North Korean regime nothing and invites counterattack, it is highly unlikely to happen - and that's not even considering the Chinese opposition to such an action. The same goes for a nuclear attack on anyone.

The North Korean regime's power rests on portraying the Americans and South Koreans as enemies. We are the threat they use to stay in power, and we constantly play into their hands by being belligerent, hostile, and combative. The best approach we could take to undermine and eventually dismantle their regime would be to end the sanctions and open up trade and communications. The more North Koreans who realize how backward their country is, the more pressure there will be for things to change.

I don't disagree with your ideas about trying to get the North Korean people on our side Aetius. But I've served along the DMZ and everything from my military experience mirrors what the Atlantic article stated. If there's little to no warning of attack, the first artillery barrages are going to do severe damage to any American units still in garrison. They will also do a fair amount of damage to Seoul. I agree that any attack south will probably falter, but then America and South Korea will be forced to counterattack. The North Koreans were dogged in resisting during the first Korean War - and if anything the latest generation is even more brainwashed to think that an invasion by America means that your babies are going to be eaten and your wives are going to get gang-raped to death. They're not going to surrender easily, and the hostile terrain filled with death traps is as true of the NK side as it is the ROK side. Personally, I think North Korea's greatest weapon is its 100,000 commandos. We've seen what barely trained Iraqi insurgents and Taliban can do to American convoys and supply lines. Now think of what division after division of troops almost as tough as Army rangers (although not as well-equipped) could do.

The good news is that the North is probably saber rattling for more concessions. But I completely disagree that North Korea is a paper tiger that America and South Korea would curbstomp with little effort and few casualties.

There is also the problem of the getting out. I would like to think that the last 12 years have had a bit of education for the US and NATO. I would also like to think that Egypt, Syria, and Libya have been educational regarding letting the people of the nations take the lead. Should North Korea pose a threat to an allied nation, Japan say, the US need take action.

But so long as North Korea or Iran is just barking and puffing out their chests, I think leaving them alone is largely the answer. These states lack the backing of large and powerful nations, like they once did. China is shaking its head, condemning proceeding. And Russia is in no position to assist.

And I just to not see North Korea having the natural, industrial, technological, or personal resources to justify more than any minimal effort that the US and other nations put towards them absent a legitimate threat to allies, or sovereign soil.

jdzappa wrote:

I don't disagree with your ideas about trying to get the North Korean people on our side Aetius. But I've served along the DMZ and everything from my military experience mirrors what the Atlantic article stated. If there's little to no warning of attack, the first artillery barrages are going to do severe damage to any American units still in garrison. They will also do a fair amount of damage to Seoul. I agree that any attack south will probably falter, but then America and South Korea will be forced to counterattack. The North Koreans were dogged in resisting during the first Korean War - and if anything the latest generation is even more brainwashed to think that an invasion by America means that your babies are going to be eaten and your wives are going to get gang-raped to death. They're not going to surrender easily, and the hostile terrain filled with death traps is as true of the NK side as it is the ROK side. Personally, I think North Korea's greatest weapon is its 100,000 commandos. We've seen what barely trained Iraqi insurgents and Taliban can do to American convoys and supply lines. Now think of what division after division of troops almost as tough as Army rangers (although not as well-equipped) could do.

The good news is that the North is probably saber rattling for more concessions. But I completely disagree that North Korea is a paper tiger that America and South Korea would curbstomp with little effort and few casualties.

Are a brainwahsed people capable of asymmetrical warfare against a superpower like us focused on a country that's bordered by water on two sides and an ally of ours on the third? Remember that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were dealing with *tribal* and religiously motivated peoples who had already managed to survive the Soviets/Saddam--they may be fanatics, but how will people who are that brainwashed deal with any disruption to their command structure? Will China play anything like the role Pakistan or even Iran played in Afghanistan and Iraq? There's no al-Qaeda network for those insurgents to tap into for supplies or leadership or expertise. Iraq just had those ports on the Persian Gulf, while Afghanistan was in the middle of Asia.

Oh, and you know: we tried to fight both of them as the same time. Unless we try to invade, like, Cuba or something, that's another difference.

Even granting all that, why would we have to wage war by assault as opposed to siege? How long would that resistance last if all international aid was cut off? It would be a horrific way to win a war, but they can't feed themselves now let alone if they were under massive supply interdiction, and I can't imagine their infrastructure is all that robust that once the bombs start falling it will last long.

I just think there are too few similarities to make those comparisons so simply. Not to mention, who says we can't just buy off Lil' Kim once we demonstrate his options are to get blown up or live a life of luxurious exile? It's not like it would be the first time in history that an empire expanded its power by co-opting the local elites.

And that's another difference to remember: there are two sides to every war, and think about the psychology of OUR side vs. Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no 9/11 here to make peace with NK's leaders unpalatable. There's no deep psychic wound for us that needs to be repaired and makes them not just our enemy but our bogeyman. Lil' Kim didn't try to kill Obama's father. Saddam surrendered to us, and while I'm not that informed about NK, I think it's a safe guess to say he was one hell of a lot tougher of an individual than anything NK has in their leadership.

Cheese makes good points, their brainwashing is an asset. The incredible loyalty that the Japanese had in World War II worked out great for us, once the Emperor surrendered, so did everyone else.

Yonder wrote:

Cheese makes good points, their brainwashing is an asset. The incredible loyalty that the Japanese had in World War II worked out great for us, once the Emperor surrendered, so did everyone else.

Good point, but we did end up nuking 2 cities before they could surrender. So it could still get ugly.

jdzappa wrote:

I agree that any attack south will probably falter, but then America and South Korea will be forced to counterattack.

Why? Time is on the side of the South Koreans. The North Koreans have very little fuel, limited food even for their military units, and what little transportation infrastructure they have will be destroyed. South Korea, on the other hand, will have plenty of food, an essentially unlimited ability to maneuver on terrain they've virtually memorized, and unlimited supplies from the rest of the world, which has a strong vested interest in their survival.

The North Koreans were dogged in resisting during the first Korean War - and if anything the latest generation is even more brainwashed to think that an invasion by America means that your babies are going to be eaten and your wives are going to get gang-raped to death. They're not going to surrender easily, and the hostile terrain filled with death traps is as true of the NK side as it is the ROK side.

Which is precisely why the North cannot risk losing an offensive war, and why the South Koreans should simply play defense. Once the war is over, and none of those things happen, people will realize that things have changed since the 1950's, and the South Koreans and Americans are no longer a threat. That would be a fate that the North Korean leadership would do anything to avoid.

Personally, I think North Korea's greatest weapon is its 100,000 commandos. We've seen what barely trained Iraqi insurgents and Taliban can do to American convoys and supply lines. Now think of what division after division of troops almost as tough as Army rangers (although not as well-equipped) could do.

If we don't invade North Korea, they would have to be used on offense. The only viable way to do that is infiltration. If they were infiltrated into the South, how many do you think would simply disappear into the population?

The good news is that the North is probably saber rattling for more concessions. But I completely disagree that North Korea is a paper tiger that America and South Korea would curbstomp with little effort and few casualties.

The point is not that they could do a lot of damage - there's plenty of militaries out there like that. The point is that the North Korean leadership has nothing to gain from any plausible scenario, and everything to lose - and there's no one more likely to cling to power than a military junta. You might as well talk about how much damage the modern French military could do to the Germans across the border.

Aetius wrote:

Which is precisely why the North cannot risk losing an offensive war, and why the South Koreans should simply play defense. Once the war is over, and none of those things happen, people will realize that things have changed since the 1950's, and the South Koreans and Americans are no longer a threat. That would be a fate that the North Korean leadership would do anything to avoid.

While I also don't think that SK and the US would need to go on the offensive, if we did not go on the offensive, then why on earth would any of the North Koreans believe that we crushed their offense and are sparing them out of benevolence, and not just assume that they hadn't heard from the soldiers in awhile because they were off gloriously conquering the South?

Yonder wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Which is precisely why the North cannot risk losing an offensive war, and why the South Koreans should simply play defense. Once the war is over, and none of those things happen, people will realize that things have changed since the 1950's, and the South Koreans and Americans are no longer a threat. That would be a fate that the North Korean leadership would do anything to avoid.

While I also don't think that SK and the US would need to go on the offensive, if we did not go on the offensive, then why on earth would any of the North Koreans believe that we crushed their offense and are sparing them out of benevolence, and not just assume that they hadn't heard from the soldiers in awhile because they were off gloriously conquering the South?

Because the letters from the front are all exactly the same and make reference to non-existent family members?

kazooka wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Which is precisely why the North cannot risk losing an offensive war, and why the South Koreans should simply play defense. Once the war is over, and none of those things happen, people will realize that things have changed since the 1950's, and the South Koreans and Americans are no longer a threat. That would be a fate that the North Korean leadership would do anything to avoid.

While I also don't think that SK and the US would need to go on the offensive, if we did not go on the offensive, then why on earth would any of the North Koreans believe that we crushed their offense and are sparing them out of benevolence, and not just assume that they hadn't heard from the soldiers in awhile because they were off gloriously conquering the South?

Because the letters from the front are all exactly the same and make reference to non-existent family members? :(

If the Glorious Leader says that you have a son named Chin Ho then goddamnit you have a son named Chin Ho.

The point is not that they could do a lot of damage - there's plenty of militaries out there like that. The point is that the North Korean leadership has nothing to gain from any plausible scenario, and everything to lose - and there's no one more likely to cling to power than a military junta. You might as well talk about how much damage the modern French military could do to the Germans across the border.

France may have it's problems but it's not run by an insane regime that would likely decide to go out in a Bon Jovi style blaze of glory rather than implode. Look, I'm not saying that it's inevitable North Korea declares war. If I were li'l Kim, the first thing I'd do would be to sign a treaty with South Korea and the US. I'd show my people pictures from circa 2008 about America's "financial collapse" and how the US is now a former shadow of itself and no longer a threat. Then I would adopt Chinese-style capitalism and start offering foreign investors the absolute rock bottom labor. The average North Korean doesn't care if he gets 3 cents a week as long as he no longer needs to eat grass or occassionally canablize his aging aunt.

But the problem with crazy dictators are they can be completely unpredictable. I've been reading a lot about the Eastern Front in preparation for Company of Heroes 2, and from what it sounds like Stalin had no plans to invade Germany. Hitler decided to make the biggest military blunder in history because of his own crazy ideology.

Are a brainwahsed people capable of asymmetrical warfare against a superpower like us focused on a country that's bordered by water on two sides and an ally of ours on the third? Remember that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were dealing with *tribal* and religiously motivated peoples who had already managed to survive the Soviets/Saddam--they may be fanatics, but how will people who are that brainwashed deal with any disruption to their command structure? Will China play anything like the role Pakistan or even Iran played in Afghanistan and Iraq? There's no al-Qaeda network for those insurgents to tap into for supplies or leadership or expertise. Iraq just had those ports on the Persian Gulf, while Afghanistan was in the middle of Asia.

I think you may have mistaken my earlier post and thougt I was saying that at best we'll fight North Korea to a draw like we've done in Afghanistan (but that's another post). I have no doubt we'd eventually beat the North, and I'd bet that an attack by North Korea would draw in full UN support like the first Korean War. I'm just saying that it would be a lot bloodier than many Americans expect.

Even granting all that, why would we have to wage war by assault as opposed to siege? How long would that resistance last if all international aid was cut off? It would be a horrific way to win a war, but they can't feed themselves now let alone if they were under massive supply interdiction, and I can't imagine their infrastructure is all that robust that once the bombs start falling it will last long.

We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than we did during all of World War 2 and they didn't easily buckle. North Korea won't be able to last forever of course, but I'm not sure if simply starving them out would be feasible BECAUSE

And that's another difference to remember: there are two sides to every war, and think about the psychology of OUR side vs. Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no 9/11 here to make peace with NK's leaders unpalatable. There's no deep psychic wound for us that needs to be repaired and makes them not just our enemy but our bogeyman.

An initial invasion/bombardment would likely kill several thousand American troops on the border in the first couple days. I"m not sure the loss of even more Americans than 9/11 would make it politically acceptable not to eventually attack.

Not to mention, who says we can't just buy off Lil' Kim once we demonstrate his options are to get blown up or live a life of luxurious exile? It's not like it would be the first time in history that an empire expanded its power by co-opting the local elites.

Valid point and it might work. Then again, Hussein, Gaddafi, and currently Asad had their chances to go into exile and not take them.

jdzappa wrote:

I think you may have mistaken my earlier post and thought I was saying that at best we'll fight North Korea to a draw like we've done in Afghanistan (but that's another post). I have no doubt we'd eventually beat the North, and I'd bet that an attack by North Korea would draw in full UN support like the first Korean War. I'm just saying that it would be a lot bloodier than many Americans expect.

I know, but I'm saying all those factors you list in support of what you're saying have issues.

We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than we did during all of World War 2 and they didn't easily buckle. North Korea won't be able to last forever of course, but I'm not sure if simply starving them out would be feasible BECAUSE

I actually had Vietnam in mind, which is why I brought up Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq/Iran: where's North Korea's version of Cambodia? Heck, where's North Korea's version of South Vietnam? How do we know North Korea is capable of fighting without authority? Vietnam had years of resistance to the Japanese and French before we got there to develop into what we wound up fighting, while you're talking about a brainwashed people: brainwashed people are not creative and independent people, and that's what an insurgency takes I would think. It's not a valid comparison.

An initial invasion/bombardment would likely kill several thousand American troops on the border in the first couple days. I"m not sure the loss of even more Americans than 9/11 would make it politically acceptable not to eventually attack.

Oh, I didn't say not attack: I said siege, not assault, only instead of catapults and trebuchets, we've got jets and drones. I think we'd be just fine with waiting for things to start collapsing.

Valid point and it might work. Then again, Hussein, Gaddafi, and currently Asad had their chances to go into exile and not take them.

Like I said, they seem made of sterner stuff. Those first two guys built their regimes. The last guy hasn't really faced that threat yet, and they all seem more interested in the power side of being a dictator as opposed to the privilege side compared to him and his father.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Like I said, they seem made of sterner stuff. Those first two guys built their regimes. The last guy hasn't really faced that threat yet, and they all seem more interested in the power side of being a dictator as opposed to the privilege side compared to him and his father.

I certainly agree there. We can't forget that it's a regime, too. Giving the top guy immunity isn't going to result in much regardless of how much power they have. There's a tremendous power gap between the country's regime overall and its people, and that gap will remain. With the DPRK in particular, I don't think the regime knows any other way to behave than the manner in which they're behaving right now.

Aetius wrote:

You might as well talk about how much damage the modern French military could do to the Germans across the border.

They'd devastate them in a stand-up fight. The French military, excluding the Foreign Legion, is almost twice the size of the German military (128,000 vs 68,000), and has had quite a lot of combat experience in the last decade - one quarter of it's troops are stationed overseas in trouble spots. If you add in the French Foreign Legion, you get another 100,000, and no one disputes their combat skills. There are 70,000 reservists; Germany has 144,000, so that balances things somewhat. Germany has also not participated in international operations until Afghanistan and Iraq. They actually have disbanded their own indigenous Corps and now operate exclusively in international military formations.

The Bundeswehr was at 366,000 in 1991, so they have definitely downsized, while the French have stayed pretty constant and even increased their interventions since then. It's pretty obvious which country has more experience at this time. Remember, there was a concerted propaganda campaign against the French in the early 2000's; the common perception of them as "surrender monkeys" is disastrously wrong.

I did not realize that Germany's armed forces were solely within international units, that is pretty awesome.

I didn't either, until I looked into it. Fits with their modern stance, though.

That's one hell of a peace dividend they are getting for not fielding a First World standing military. No wonder they live well.

Another thing to remember about NoKo is they enjoy testing and doing stuff around United States holidays or events. For instance, Tuesday's State of the Union.

Here is probably the most sense I have heard from a Beltway bandit in decades regarding North Korea.

Link

A new relationship with North Korea is imperative, and the United States must take the first step. In the 1980s, some in the State Department proposed that Beijing and Moscow recognize South Korea while Washington recognize North Korea. With the end of the Cold War, China and Russia did establish robust diplomatic and economic ties with Seoul. Still, we refused to normalize relations with Pyongyang.

Washington should belatedly take that step. In addition, we should enter into serious negotiations with North Korea, China and South Korea to sign a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War. Such a treaty, a long-standing North Korean demand, would pave the way for reduced military deployments on both sides of the ironically named Demiltarized Zone between the North and the South. Finally, U.S. leaders should reverse course on economic sanctions, ending most unilateral measures — which bar virtually all economic contact except for U.S. humanitarian aid — and leading, together with Beijing, an effort to roll back multilateral sanctions. The ultimate goal should be to give North Korea a stake in behaving responsibly as a nuclear power.

Paleocon wrote:

That's one hell of a peace dividend they are getting for not fielding a First World standing military. No wonder they live well.

It's a no-brainer when you have 50,000 American troops stationed in your country backed by the rest of the U.S. military - not so much a peace dividend as a handout from the United States.

jdzappa wrote:

But the problem with crazy dictators are they can be completely unpredictable. I've been reading a lot about the Eastern Front in preparation for Company of Heroes 2, and from what it sounds like Stalin had no plans to invade Germany. Hitler decided to make the biggest military blunder in history because of his own crazy ideology.

Hitler did not go into Barbarossa with the sure knowledge that he was going to lose and be deposed, and he almost succeeded - and may have actually done so had the Germans not abused the local populations. To make this argument stick, you'd have to convince me that Kim Jong-un is crazier than Hitler. I'll believe that as soon as he invades China.

Aetius wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

That's one hell of a peace dividend they are getting for not fielding a First World standing military. No wonder they live well.

It's a no-brainer when you have 50,000 American troops stationed in your country backed by the rest of the U.S. military - not so much a peace dividend as a handout from the United States.

The 37,000 American troops in South Korea don't come without cost to the population. More to the point, their presence there necessarily reduces diplomatic options that could take the politics a very different course. Honestly, I do think the best of all possible options for all parties involved would be the withdrawl of American forces and an end to the policy of isolation.

I had a conversation on Friday with a bunch of the folks who hung around after my Rotary meeting. We got on the subject of North Korea and I made the observation that historical context matters. That isn't to say that I agree with or defend that actions of the North Korean regime, but that inside of the historical context, the stated and implicit goals of all of our foreign policy becomes either possible or impossible.

I asked around the room for folks to tell me what they thought would be an acceptable outcome to the "North Korean problem" and universally, it came down to: 1) the end of the North Korean regime, 2) the opening of North Korea to American consumer products, 3) and the elimination of a viable military opposition in North Korea to American influence.

I know I have gone into this many times before, but the context of 1945 and the fact that we supported a regime in South Korea that was as bad (no exaggeration) as folks who collaborated with the Nazis when it came to committing atrocities on their own people and erasing their own culture, the above (at least in the minds of ordinary North Koreans) would be tantamout to committing auto-genocide.

I heard a while back that the movie most popular among Arab revolutionaries for the last several decades has been Mel Gibson's Braveheart. That's how they view themselves and they view us as the evil English who wish to literally and figuratively rape them out of existence.

I suspect that if our movies were widely available to North Koreans, the movie most closely identified as "theirs" would be Frank Miller's 300.

Paleocon wrote:
Aetius wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

That's one hell of a peace dividend they are getting for not fielding a First World standing military. No wonder they live well.

It's a no-brainer when you have 50,000 American troops stationed in your country backed by the rest of the U.S. military - not so much a peace dividend as a handout from the United States.

The 37,000 American troops in South Korea don't come without cost to the population. More to the point, their presence there necessarily reduces diplomatic options that could take the politics a very different course. Honestly, I do think the best of all possible options for all parties involved would be the withdrawl of American forces and an end to the policy of isolation.

I'm not sure it would be. I don't think the North Korean regime wants us gone and an end to isolation. It's a lot easier to control a populace when they are isolated and you can scare them with tales of a bogeyman across the border that can be blamed for all the problems in your country.

You often bring up Braveheart, and I often wonder if the people who embrace it just see it as Us. vs. Them, or if they are actually paying attention to the movie and realize that it's actually about the elite on both sides conspiring to make sure that whatever else happens, the peasants get screwed and that it really was never about 'culture' at all.

Maybe the movie for North Korea is 1984: "we are at war with Eurmerica; we have always been at war with Eurmerica."

The thing is, we will be a belligerent to NK as long as they want us to be, regardless of our actions. If we unilaterally disarmed, dropped sanctions and offered trade agreements, NK might well take anything we offer them, but their internal propaganda would still be that the US was The Enemy, and the goods came from some heroic deed of the Supreme Leader, or are the natural product of application of Juche thought, or whatever else slots into the messaging.

DPRK leadership will resist any attempt for the US and SK relations to be normalized to NK citizens, because that enmity provides legitimacy to their government. It even belies the cult of personality, since normalizing relations would require revising/harmonizing "history" so that the Kims weren't wrong to be enemies of the US and insist on Korean unification on their terms for four decades. (Not that they couldn't or wouldn't do that, but it's a lot of work, and carries some risk.) Our unwillingness to participate in that relationship wouldn't change that.

China withholding support from NK might be a big enough stick to make them change their attitude, especially if it came with a golden parachute of some sort so the leadership could be guaranteed security and a continuity in their standard of living. But that has more to do with US/China relations and China's own geopolitical aims; again, our orientation toward DPRK isn't relevant.

The US maintains a guarded policy toward North Korea because doing otherwise makes no difference, and all other things being equal, it's better to watch an avowed enemy than not to. NK has very few reasons to meet us halfway, and many reasons not to.

Walken Dead wrote:

The US maintains a guarded policy toward North Korea because doing otherwise makes no difference, and all other things being equal, it's better to watch an avowed enemy than not to. NK has very few reasons to meet us halfway, and many reasons not to.

I'm forced to disagree. Enmity towards the US and South Korea does indeed fuel their control over the country, and it is only kept alive through isolation, as you noted. Thus, the way to attack their legitimacy and undermine their control is to be as friendly as possible. Look at how their elite live versus their general population and tell me that greed isn't one of the defining characteristics of the North Korean leadership! If offered, they will be quite happy to become more rich and influential ... and in the process, open up their society to more outside communication.

Walken Dead wrote:

since normalizing relations would require revising/harmonizing "history" so that the Kims weren't wrong to be enemies of the US

You're correct about this, except that most of the harmonizing actually needs to happen on our side. There is a great fear of admitting to the many terrible things that happened during the Korean War, and admitting that the North Koreans have a right to be afraid of the Americans and especially the South Koreans. The U.S. Government has officially acknowledged a few incidents like No Gun Ri and the Bodo League massacres, but denies many others - and that's ignoring the horrific firebombing of North Korean cities and the casually brutal repression perpetrated and abetted by American military forces in South Korea in the years before the war.

Counteracting that awful image of Americans should be our primary diplomatic goal, not acting tough. If acting tough was going to work, it would have worked at some point in the 50 years. It's long past time to try something else.

North Korea declares 1953 armistice invalid

The North Korean army has declared invalid the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War in 1953, the official newspaper of the country's ruling Workers' Party said Monday.

Since last week, North Korea had been threatening to scrap the armistice after the U.N. Security Council passed tougher sanctions against it in response to its February 12 nuclear test.

On Monday, the Rodong Sinmun newspaper reported that the Supreme Command of North Korea's army had done so.

"The U.S. has reduced the armistice agreement to a dead paper," the newspaper said.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

North Korea declares 1953 armistice invalid

The North Korean army has declared invalid the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War in 1953, the official newspaper of the country's ruling Workers' Party said Monday.

Since last week, North Korea had been threatening to scrap the armistice after the U.N. Security Council passed tougher sanctions against it in response to its February 12 nuclear test.

On Monday, the Rodong Sinmun newspaper reported that the Supreme Command of North Korea's army had done so.

"The U.S. has reduced the armistice agreement to a dead paper," the newspaper said.

The sixth time will surely pay off for North Korea!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

North Korea declares 1953 armistice invalid

The North Korean army has declared invalid the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War in 1953, the official newspaper of the country's ruling Workers' Party said Monday.

Since last week, North Korea had been threatening to scrap the armistice after the U.N. Security Council passed tougher sanctions against it in response to its February 12 nuclear test.

On Monday, the Rodong Sinmun newspaper reported that the Supreme Command of North Korea's army had done so.

"The U.S. has reduced the armistice agreement to a dead paper," the newspaper said.

A little bit lower:

Has the North ended the armistice before?

Yes. In 2003, Pyonyang's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) announced that it may have "no option" but to stop honoring the armistice because of the United State's "persistent war moves."

In 2009, North Korea said its military would no longer be bound by the agreement because South Korea was joining a U.S.-led anti-proliferation plan.

Nothing to see here, keep moving on.

NK is run by a megalomaniac and megalos only look out for themselves and that's the rest of the world's ace in the hole.

NK Leader is full of hot air. He knows if he does any serious military maneuver he'll be wiped off the map.

Let him talk all he wants, we all know he can't do anything without ultimately killing himself in the process.

Of course, he is a useful patsy for the expansion of the national security state. And that, of course, is the real reason the United States North Koreans will never seek a peaceful solution: having enemies is useful, especially when they are a) belligerent and b) entirely unable to make good on their threats.

It breaks my heart seeing this video.

To think she was the same age I was at the time the video was made. I was playing video games. She had lost her family. And she was left to starve. Which she did a mere few months after the video was made.