have your say

How should the international community respond to the recent series of missile launches by North Korea?


©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

As a memorable quote goes, "With extreme prejudice." Deal with Russia in the same way too.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Who is the "international community"? Usually this refers to the US and its vassal states.

Maybe, just maybe if the US and South Korea stopped their war games to prepare for an invasion, the US removed its bases positioned to threaten the north things would calm down?

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

I've been a watcher of the Korean Peninsula's events for years and this is just my two cents on it. First scenario is that we can treat every missile test as a serious provocation, and treat every projectile as the real deal and shoot it down while increasing allied military posture in the region. This move could reveal any potential weaknesses in the allies' ballistic missile defense capabilities that would greatly benefit Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow. The second option is to just ignore the little rocket man's cries for attention and just pressure the country with more sanctions until they give, if they give. The negatives I see in this is that it might encourage apathy among the international community, to which a real missile strike with a working warhead might intentionally strike a nearby country. The third and probably most constructive scenario is to go back to the negotiation table. Former SoKor president Moon Jae-In was quite successful in deescalating tensions with the North as it avoided enforcing sanctions and proposed ways to ease the internal issues of Pyongyang. The best way to kill an enemy is with kindness, but as far as international relations go, a sanctions-based approach on renegade powers will unfortunately still become standard practice instead of more constructive measures.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@Toshihiro, great post. The "bomb them to the stone age" knee jerk (or effectively equivalent comments) already and satisfying, for me also. The reality is there has to be an effort as you suggested in option 3. War is a regressive endeavor, always.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

are "easy and satisfying". About that edit feature....
-1 ( +1 / -2 )



Agree on some points.

First scenario: fully agree. Has to be avoided.

Second scenario: NK is a dictatorship. It is not about the leader surrendering his country, it is about the leader relinquishing his very position. The dictator does not care one bit about the country he is running into the ground, he just wants to keep his position at the top of the pyramid how ever shoddy and falling apart the pyramid is. As such, sanctions will not work as they do not impact the dictator. Also, NK (and now Russia) are two of the most if not the most sanctioned countries. Their dictators have not surrender now, they will not surrender in the future.

Yes, apathy is a risk as well as one of the missiles based on what can only be labelled as outdated (and possibly shoddy) technology could hit something it was not intended to...

Third scenario: apologies but this is wishful thinking. Moon hasn't achieved anything, neither did Kim Dae-Jung's "sunshine policy" one decade earlier. The reason being the dictator's position and aim (see scenario two). The Kim's are just playing the clock in order to remain at the top. Hasn't worked up to now, won't work in future either.

Fourth scenario: war. This is ridiculous at any level and may quickly escalate to engulf: the Korean peninsula, Asia or the world. Anybody seriously advocating this nonsense should get his head examined.

The situation around NK is pretty much a Mexican standoff driven by NK. Unsolvable by default, impossible to defuse, any reckless action as small as it may look may trigger a chain reaction taking everything over the point of no-return.

As such, the "least worst" option (in my book) is to let Kim continue to crow from the top of his crumbling pyramid. When the whole house of cards will fall, the "least worst" option will then to deal with the fallout (e.g. refugees, blue helmets, cutting up NK between "the West" and "China", etc).

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@ Blue, also a fair assessment.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why should the 'international community' do anything? All countries test their own missiles.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

By laughing at the fact lil Kim does it because of his small (wink, wink) issue.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How? They don’t even respond at all so far. That’s the problem in this case.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

international community equals to-who?USA and NATO?

if we are talking about whole world,response will be as same as for american provocations in South Korea-none.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Ignore it. Political theatre and attention whoring.

Concentrate of improving infrastructure for climate resilience, supporting the poor and keeping the lights on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm temped to say ignore it as much as possible, since they are only doing it for want of attention. Definitely don't react like Japan's early warning system did -- probably has North Korea laughing all the way to the next test prep.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Isolation. It worked for Cuba, Apartheid S. Africa and Mao's Red China. It would work against N. Korea.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Lee,where is evidence that Cuba engage in terror,this is just a manufactured lie,to please the Miami Cuban community

0 ( +1 / -1 )


Cuba was at the center of the Missile Crisis, the modern world's biggest existential threat. But then, US isolation policy the rendered the country geopolitically and strategically impotent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites