Thoughts on some of the consequences of a war with North Korea

There are a number of tensions growing in the world today - many of those are associated with the USA's 45th President (who I'll refer to in this post as US45). Of those, there are some tensions inside the US, but those matters seem to be being ignored or denied by US45: that "water off a duck's back” approach is significant, in the context of this post, as, elsewhere in  history, leaders who have been sensitive to such pressures have welcomed a war outside the nation as a marvellous distraction (I'll suggest Thatcher and the Falklands as an example, knowing that the example is arguable - and that the example may more appropriately be cited for the Argentinian side). In this instance, any war that US45 gets into is likely to be because he considers such to be "right" - the increased involvement against violent extremists in Syria (and, to some extent, Iraq) is one such example.

That leads into the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) - i.e., North Korea.

POTUS45 has made it clear that he thinks North Korea is "bad" (along with Iran), largely over the development of nuclear weapons. That apprehension is shared by other US administrations, and most of the world. What is new is the level of rhetoric that US45 is using, with quite strong threats of physical action.

I'm not in the USA, so I get my news second hand, but I have the impression that the rhetoric against North Korea is more intense than that against both violent extremists, which US45 has acted on (by stepping up an existing military involvement), and Iran. Given that, the equally bellicose blusterings from North Korea's new leader, who appears to be seeking to establishing himself as the DPRK's strongest leader yet, and some experts pronouncements that war with the DPRK is imminent following their most recent ballistic missile tests, I have concerns that there is a risk of war.

The elephant in the room here is China.

The USA's miscalculation - despite warnings (see here and here) - during the Korean War that invading the North would not lead to Chinese involvement was disastrously wrong, and led to that war being prolonged by years and millions of deaths - and the cementing into place of the Kim dynasty. Had that invasion not taken place, I suspect more reasonable leadership MAY have eventually taken over the DPRK.

In the present decade, China has been slow to realise the depths of concern of the rest of the world - not only the USA, and thus has been somewhat tokenistic, I consider, in wielding its influence over the DPRK. It is only in recent months, for instance, that China has started to more genuinely impose sanctions. However, I suspect China still doesn't appreciate the reality of the risk of war, and that said war could result in China having US forces on its border - unless it again stepped in to support the DPRK, which could escalate to World War III. (There is no possibility of the DPRK winning, but it would be an extremely bloody war.)

(On the DPRK's part, they have learned the lessons of the Philippines, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Afghanistan [although, ironically, attempts to be more respectful of locals may have limited the effectiveness of that invasion, in that the key target person escaped] and Iraq, which is why they are so determined to have an effective nuclear deterrent. A recent suggestion that I read for China to guarantee that nuclear deterrent on condition that the DPRK dismantle its programme could  provide the conditions for peace ... but I doubt anyone would be interested in that - sadly.)

There is another aspect to this, which the USA's long history of losing the peace.

In the documentary "No End in Sight", there is a comment made that the occupation of Germany after World War Part Two was three years in the planning, as opposed to the negligible planning for the 2003 Iraq invasion. (I am still staggered that ANYONE could believe the so obviously lacking in credibility claims before that war!) I suspect that US45 and his administration would put even less thought into the aftermath of a war with the DPRK.

The failure to think before the 2003 invasion of Iraq led directly to the near two decades of war in that region, including the rise of Da'esh. What would a similar lack of forethought do to East Asia and the world?
One of the saddest aspects of this is that it is quite clear, particularly from the documentary I refer to above, that the USA - and other nations, in my view - have the capacity to prevent the disaster of "losing the peace", if only the experts  would be genuinely listened to.