George H.W. Bush is reelected in 1992, is there a war to disarm North Korea?

How does George H.W. Bush deal w/the North Korea nuke WMD problem as POTUS, 1993-1997 ?

  • a) A deal along the lines of the Clinton Agreed Framework

    Votes: 20 41.7%
  • b) A "miracle deal" that stops the North Korean program on nukes and long-range missiles cold

    Votes: 2 4.2%
  • c) A Korean war involving US destruction of North Korean missile & nuke facilities

    Votes: 15 31.3%
  • d) A war concluding with regime change and Korean unification under the south

    Votes: 5 10.4%
  • e) A Korean War that turns into a Sino-American War

    Votes: 6 12.5%

  • Total voters
    48

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if George Bush the Elder were reelected President in 1992.

PoD is somehow Tom Harkin, Paul Tsongas or Jesse Jackson are the Democratic nominee and they lose the general to Bush and to Perot. Even if Bush does not win a plurality of votes over Perot, let's suppose he wins the electoral college.

The result of him getting a second term is frankly what I am more interested in then the process of him getting there.

How will Bush's 2nd term go? In particular, his foreign policy?

When the North Korean nuclear development program is discovered (I assume on OTL's schedule), how does the Bush Administration resolve it?

a) A deal along the lines of the Clinton Agreed Framework
b) A "miracle deal" that stops the North Korean program on nukes and long-range missiles cold
c) A Korean war involving US destruction of North Korean missile and nuke facilities
d) A Korean war concluding with regime change and Korean unification under the south
e) A Korean War that turns into a Sino-American War

Why?
 

SsgtC

Banned
(F) An offer to work diplomatically to end the Nuke program and provide food and oil in exchange combined with a threat (backed up by beefed up Naval, Air and Ground forces in the region) to blow the ever living shit out of their weapons program if they don't. The recent demonstration of American power in Gulf War 1 gives decisive evidence that American kit is orders of magnitude better than Soviet export equipment. Kim Jong-Il sees the writing on the wall and agrees. Publicly ends the program, but secretly keeps it active. NK still probably gets there bomb, but delayed over OTL by 10-20 years.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I'd go with either A or B. Basically, Bush Sr. would have liked to resolve this problem without war, and out of A and B, I think that A is more likely because North Korea might not have been willing to give everything up at once and Bush Sr. would have only had four more years in office.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
there is a (g) option I did not provide I suppose, a broader deal than the agreed framework, with more mutual concessions from both the US and DPRK side, a Korean War peace treaty, et cetera
 
In an example of back room double betrayal would China and the US trade North Korea for Taiwan?

Beijing tells Washington you want North Korea, a reunified Korea, then you give us free reign over Taiwan
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In an example of back room double betrayal would China and the US trade North Korea for Taiwan?

Beijing tells Washington you want North Korea, a reunified Korea, then you give us free reign over Taiwan


This is a clever idea, and I can see how, over the long-term, it would remove some flash points and make peace and quiet easier to maintain in Asia.

However, I do not see it as likely.

Real, cynical hard-boiled horse-trading diplomacy over big territories is a dying art form, and has been for awhile.

In the early to mid-1990s, the US might find such a bargain domestically too difficult and strategically unnecessary. Despite the traditional Chinese interest in North Korea, I think the strategic correlation forces was such that China would steer clear of conflict. In the early-mid-1990s America's nuclear and conventional superiority was quite pronounced, and Yeltsin's Russia was not in a position to provide extended deterrence to anyone. China was just getting over its post-Tiananmen isolation and had just recommitted to a developmental strategy dependent on access to the global marketplace.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
In an example of back room double betrayal would China and the US trade North Korea for Taiwan?

Beijing tells Washington you want North Korea, a reunified Korea, then you give us free reign over Taiwan

I can't see that with Taiwan.
Taiwan's support in the US has never been strongest at presidential level but rather with Senators and Congressmen.
Even if a president and his cabinet - Bush 41 or Clinton Administration - wanted to give the country away to China like that, it would never fly in the Senator or Congress.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
In the early to mid-1990s, the US might find such a bargain domestically too difficult and strategically unnecessary. Despite the traditional Chinese interest in North Korea, I think the strategic correlation forces was such that China would steer clear of conflict. In the early-mid-1990s America's nuclear and conventional superiority was quite pronounced, and Yeltsin's Russia was not in a position to provide extended deterrence to anyone. China was just getting over its post-Tiananmen isolation and had just recommitted to a developmental strategy dependent on access to the global marketplace.
Can't China pursue more unconventional warfare against the U.S. in such a scenario, though? After all, you have to admit that un-industrialized Maoist China was able to fight the industrialized U.S. and the U.N. to a stalemate in Korea in the Korean War!
 
You can probably rule out anything involving a deliberate path to war. The problem then, as now, is that any such conflict would have a substantial risk of massive casualties and a destabilizing effect on the economy of Asia; Bush was not the type to impetuously start a war; his approach was one of diplomacy and deliberation as we saw with Desert Storm. An additional problem is that North Korea was a black hole for US intelligence (as it is now). That leaves (a) or (b) with (a) being the most likely in my opinion. Bush would have appreciated the intelligence problem as a former CIA director. As a former Head of Mission to China, Bush knew something about China from that time in Beijing, which leads me to think that he would have been very cautious about anything going on in the immediate periphery of China. If Bush did choose military action, he would likely have obtained a buy-in from all the relevant parties, including China. But again, that was a very risky move due to the proximity of Seoul to North Korean artillery positions.

North Korea was a difficult problem in 1992 -- and still is. Now, that said, if anyone might have pulled off a miracle there, Bush had as good a chance of anyone due to his background.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Can't China pursue more unconventional warfare against the U.S. in such a scenario, though? After all, you have to admit that un-industrialized Maoist China was able to fight the industrialized U.S. and the U.N. to a stalemate in Korea in the Korean War!

What is your unconventional warplan for the Chinese in this instance?

Use North Korean guerrillas against the U.S.?

Well I think the U.S. leave most fighting against them to the South Koreans.

Chinese troops doing guerrilla warfare?

Not a thing that really works at any scale outside one's own home country.

Intervene like China did with infantry volunteers?

Well, I wouldn't call that unconventional, I would call that poor man's conventional warfare.

And while China was un-industrialized during the Korean War, its army and air force were able to access Soviet industrial products like MiG fighters and artillery.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What is your unconventional warplan for the Chinese in this instance?

Use North Korean guerrillas against the U.S.?

Well I think the U.S. leave most fighting against them to the South Koreans.

Chinese troops doing guerrilla warfare?

Not a thing that really works at any scale outside one's own home country.

Intervene like China did with infantry volunteers?

Well, I wouldn't call that unconventional, I would call that poor man's conventional warfare.

Exactly what methods did China use in 1950-1953?

And while China was un-industrialized during the Korean War, its army and air force were able to access Soviet industrial products like MiG fighters and artillery.

How well do you think that China would have performed in the Korean War without these Soviet industrial products?
 
Top