Why did North Korea propose talks with South Korea first?


Unexpectedly North Korea suddenly proposed talks with South Korea. In the light of recent situation it is hard to expect. They have taken hardline stance with angry rhetorics and threats toward South Korea and rejected talks proposals all the time. By the way, why did they change their attitude?

There are some points. Firstly, North Korea bent the knee to the pressure of China. China has called several times for North Korean regime to stop provacative behaviors and restart talks with South Korea. China, which could not be on the side of North Korea any more after UN sanctions on it because of the third nuke test and rocket(long range missile) launching, even showed its teeth to North korea to turn off the faucet of oil pipe which is the only source of oil supply. It is speculated that a strong warning was given to North Korea when Choi Yonghae, who is very high and key official of NK, visited China.

Secondly, Kim Jongun could’nt afford to endure the severe starvation. They are now on the verge of financial bankrupt and food shortage. A month ago North Korea stopped Kaesong Industrial Complex which is the dollar-cow for a reason of fight for self-pride between South Korea and North Korea.

There is another view point that President Park Guen-hye’s consistent talks policy on the basis of Korean Peninsula Trust Process eventually obtains effect. Korean Peninsula Trust Process is, that is to say, to build trust step by step in the process of exchanges and cooperations between two Koreas while doing easier one.

At any rate, the fact that North Korea changed its mind and first proposed talks with South Korea is a very good sign. it’s very wellcomming. But the sincere attitude that North Korea should take responsibility for stopping Kaesong Industrial Complex and is the most important thing. In the case of Kumgang Mt. sightseeing, a North Korean guard shot a South Korea woman tourist to death and they didn’t offer any apology. furthermore, North Korea unilaterally shut down of Kaesong Complex by the means of theratening South Korea. It drove forcibly South Korea employers and staff out of North Korea. It caused a great damage on them.

If North Korea wants to succeed in bearing some fruits, it should offer an apology for that first. Additionally it should make clear that it will never go back to the past. Please not a fake smile any more. I hope good luck.


It is to be hoped that this will bear useful fruit, but I have my doubts. Perhaps China tried to do this before, but maybe the present Kim has a little more sense than his father and grandfather.


Why does North Korea do anything? That country (or more specifically the leaders of that country) are far beyond my ability to comprehend.


Thank you very much for your comment. My English is not good. But you read and gave a reply for me. I will try more. Thanks


Clearly North Korea is led by a bunch of wackos.

In one of the great ironies of history, perhaps if MacArthur (who I realize is a controversial figure, and I’m not necessarily coming down on his side for everything he did) had been allowed to cross the Yalu River and KEEP the Korean territory gained we wouldn’t be in this mess.

OTOH, we may have gotten into a nuclear conflagration with Chairman Mao and the Soviets, and we all would have been toasted back in the 50’s.

Can’t say one way or the other since I was not privy to the geopolitics of the time, and I’m not qualified to analyze that situation anyway. But the musing of “what if?” still remains.

In any case, we are now stuck with a bunch of homicidal buffoons and like it or not, sooner or later, we’re going to have to deal with the situation.

Hopefully, that necessity will wait until BHO is gone. If it comes to an unavoidable crisis during his watch, the risk of being toasted will be high.

  1. I doubt we would have been toasted. We were way ahead on nuclear development, and I think we would have had a lot more nukes in '53 (and that wouldn’t have been a huge number; probably in the low three digits (maybe less)) than the Soviets and especially the Chinese, and since that was prior to deployment of strategic missiles (the tactical-range Redstone first flew as a prototype in '53, and the Soviets were a couple years later with their IRBM SS-3 (NATO code name “Shyster”)), we had them both beat all hollow with the means of delivery. The B-45 Tornado was in service (don’t know why we didn’t use them in Korea; they would have been less vulnerable than B-29 Superfortresses), so was the more advanced B-47 Stratojet, and the prototype B-52 Stratofortress first flew in '52.
  2. Alas, I didn’t see GWB doing much to deal with the situation, either…


[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:6, topic:39755”]
I doubt we would have been toasted. We were way ahead on nuclear development
[/quote]Does “way ahead” mean that they STILL had a nuclear response capability, albeit it less?

Are you saying we should have traded nuclear punches with them? Are you saying if we had done so, we would have had more survivors than them, less nuclear casualties?

Or are you saying they did not have the capability for ANY nuclear response?

Or are you saying that even though they had SOME nuclear capability, you think they would have accepted a nuclear attack and NOT made a nuclear response?

Or are you saying that taking the risk of a nuclear response was justified because we could have knocked out ALL their nuclear capabilities BEFORE they responded with their own nuclear strikes, for sure?

Don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I need to clearly understand what you were getting at . . . hence the questions.


They had nuclear weapons (the Soviets did, although my encyclopedia says their first one wasn’t until '49; I don’t know if the Chinese had any at that point), but response capability is questionable. They had the Il-28 (NATO code name “Beagle”) by then, but they lacked range (especially the early models) to attack the U.S. (except Alaska, and also Europe), and compared to the Boeing B-47 and up-and-coming B-52, speed, and getting through defenses would have been much harder than for the faster swept-wing Boeings. Also, the early models lacked payload, and I don’t even know if they even had a nuke small enough for them to carry at the time. That would have left the Tu-4 (NATO code name “Bull”), which was a Soviet copy of the WWII Boeing B-29 Superfortress, and by Korean War standards, the B-29 could only penetrate without crippling losses (and then, they still took losses; and if I’m right and the Soviets didn’t have that many nukes, then even playing a shell game (“Where’s Waldo’s Tu-4?”) wouldn’t help much; they flood the defenses with Tu-4s, most of them go down, likely including the one or ones with the nukes; and tick off a power that did have the means to penetrate) with fighter escort, which was possible on the short-range missions in Korea, but not on a long-range mission to U.S. or western European territory.

I think nuking China would have been the strategically correct thing to do; they couldn’t have done anything about it, and we could have warned the Soviets to stay out of it, or they’d be next. That latter part is tricky to estimate the effects of, since Stalin died in '53, and their leadership would have been in flux.


So how much control does China really have over NK?


A lot.


Now that is a fun little “what-if”. At the time I’m 99% sure only we and the Soviets had nukes, and the Soviets didn’t exactly have an easy way to hit us…than again they could hit plenty of other targets in Europe, in Korea, in Japan. It would have been strategically and tactically correct, China would’ve collapsed but I wonder as to what the long term affect would be, a world with no German or Japanese economic miracle…or a world where nuclear weapons are a part of conventional war. Scary thought…


Hopefully a world that realizes how disgusting it is to drop a bomb that destroys everything around it.


[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:8, topic:39755”]
I think nuking China would have been the strategically correct thing to do
[/quote]So you would have advised Truman that, from a strategic standpoint (or are you addressing the geopolitical scene in addition to the strategic?), it would have been prudent to nuke China?

Would you envision any US nuclear casualties?

Phrased as questions again for the same reason, I don’t want to put words in your mouth . . . though your statement quoted seems pretty clear.


I think I would, but it’s hard to say so when I’m not in the hotseat. I’m guessing that God didn’t will for China to be nuked, and had I been in the position, perhaps He would have told me no (whether or not I perceived Him saying so or not is yet another story).

If it had happened, I don’t expect there would have been U.S. nuke casualties, but I don’t know. Maybe a bomber could have slipped through. I suspect that those casualties would be either in-theater or in Alaska if they did happen. Again, delivery of nukes on target would have been at best tough for the Soviets.



Thank you. Very considered answer.