Korean situation thread

[Broomstick]

Actually, there's a good point to be made -- the North literally has no option left.

It's been using external threats for the last 20 years to keep the shitpile that it is together.

Problems in the home front? Provoke something to tighten up solidarity!

The problem is like a drug addict; you can't keep doing the same stuff over and over; because the Sorks and US will just yawn.

Like for example, the Norks decide to empty 500 rounds of 14.5mm at a US bunker on the DMZ. It gets things all riled up; even if nobody dies.

Then they try it again. The US and Sork don't respond as strenuously -- it's like "The Norks are up to that again?"

So they have to escalate their next provocation to keep the tension high. There's only so far you can take it.

They've sunk a South Korean warship, shelled a town with 1,500 people in it....

There really isn't much left on the escalation chain before you have WAR now.

I have to agree with Shep on this one (yes, you did see me just agree with Shep - it does happen occasionally). This does have the effect of keeping tension up, which promotes solidarity in a population that perceives itself under external threat and makes people, who are living on war footing, more tolerant of lack in their lives.

However, it does appear that the Norks are trying to deliberately provoke a war, one they can blame on the "Sorks" and/or US, at least to their own populace. While I can puzzle through the "logic" in an intellectual manner I confess that my emotional side is baffled by such an approach.

Although not spoken of in those terms, North Korea is really a theocracy with the Kims as deities, the "living god" variety of kingship even if words like "god" and "king" do not enter into the Nork vocabulary. Funny thing, that - they can be quite stable long-term, except when the god-king is fucking insane and the minions blindly obey his insane orders. The question is always whether or not the Nork leader(s) is crazy like a fox, or just batshit gibbering crazy. So far I'd say "crazy like a fox" even if it looks nuts to outsiders as the country does benefit from Nork extortion tactics on the neighbors. The problem is, we likely won't have warning if it slides over to "batshit crazy" or they get suicidal, which could happen if they're backed too far into a corner. Thing is, it doesn't have to be human action that tips the balance, natural disasters could do it as well.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Okay, I guess my ribbings makes you angers.

It's more that I don't care for trying to decipher the WHORESWHORESWHORES bullshit from the argument, given I'm prone to migraines.

But yeah. The thing is though, the current status quo (or however you put it) has seemingly worked for the past fifty years. North Korea does terrible things and kills a few people, but there have been no major destructive conflicts or resumption of hostilities ever since. Over this time, South Korea has become awesome while North Korea has become craps, and it's worked so far. Why should they change this?

I don't think it's a matter of should they change or not, so much as it is a question of how will they have to handle the problem of North Korea's eventual collapse.

Well, yes, North Korea getting nukes is a bad thing and is shit for non-proliferation. But elsewhere in the world, similar things have happened - India and Pakistan had nukes one after the other, Iran will get nukes, etc. - and that hasn't justified any resumptions of major hostilities in those places either. So, yeah. That is what leads me to be not so keen on launching whatever-emptive strikes on North Korea.

I would say that's unfair to the likes of India, Pakistan, and Iran.

All those countries you mentioned, whilst they have there own internal problems, are self-sustaining nations. Whilst North Korea without significant help from China and the stuff it extorts from us could not.

But I am just an internet fatty spouting shit, and all I have is my general dislike for wars in comparison to some people's massive hardons for destructive conflict, so I don't know if my opinion is actually craps - so feel free to call it that, I won't minds, mangs. But yeah, you're way cooler than ShadowDraggins, Schats-kun! ^__________________^

Nah, it's cool. I don't mind discussing things with you, just so long as we're both conveying information and exchanging ideas, which SDs discussions seem to lack... on one or both sides.

[Shroom Man 777]

It's more that I don't care for trying to decipher the WHORESWHORESWHORES bullshit from the argument, given I'm prone to migraines.

It's okay, I can talk properly and normally and sanely to other normally sane people like you.

I reserve the WHORESWHORESWHORES for people whose posts make me want to dickstab milkbags.

I don't think it's a matter of should they change or not, so much as it is a question of how will they have to handle the problem of North Korea's eventual collapse.

That's not an easy decision for those guys, and I think the most important things go beyond just the un/conventional military defeat of North Korea. For all we know, the whole blowing stuff up and defeating the Norks maybe be the easy part of the whole reunification business. Or, if we count our lucky stars, maybe eventually after years and years and years, the North Korean regime and its leader cult may attenuate and the country will gradually loosen up and by the 2050s, they'll reunify rather quietly without huge explosions? Or is that pure wishful thinking? It probably is. But, man, in the 1960s no one would've expected how the Soviet Union would've ended up even with all of their bestest 1960s graphs. So that is why I don't think anyone should be in a hurry for any prefix-emptive attacks.

I would say that's unfair to the likes of India, Pakistan, and Iran.

All those countries you mentioned, whilst they have there own internal problems, are self-sustaining nations. Whilst North Korea without significant help from China and the stuff it extorts from us could not.

That is true. But then again, if the Norks are reliant on the international community, then as with the junkie example, why would they want to cut themselves off from their only source of the good stuff? They want more stuff, and they do their dickeries. But if they go beyond that and go to war, they know that that will end the flow of the good stuff.

Nah, it's cool. I don't mind discussing things with you, just so long as we're both conveying information and exchanging ideas, which SDs discussions seem to lack... on one or both sides.

My terrible WHORESWHORESWHORES approach is reserved for ShadowDraggins and other folks leik that, mang. It is a form of mockery and derision for people who I don't take seriously.

[Ryan Thunder]

Personally I don't think war should even be considered until we can provide some kind of relative guarantee of safety for the people living within range of the Nork guns. If that happens to be never, then so be it.

Yeah, sure, it'd feel good to bomb the shit out of somebody who's actually deserved it--until the casualty figures started rolling in and half the people I know started losing relatives. It's not worth the cost in human lives and suffering by any stretch of the imagination, if you ask me.

[Shroom Man 777]

Personally I don't think war should even be considered until we can provide some kind of relative guarantee of safety for the people living within range of the Nork guns. If that happens to be never, then so be it.

If the Norks force war to be considerable, then there may not be any way to go around that. But I don't think the current situation is at that level yet.

[Ryan Thunder]

Personally I don't think war should even be considered until we can provide some kind of relative guarantee of safety for the people living within range of the Nork guns. If that happens to be never, then so be it.

If the Norks force war to be considerable, then there may not be any way to go around that. But I don't think the current situation is at that level yet.

Oh, well of course, if they force it, we should fight back. I meant "don't invade just yet".

[The Kernel]

The real question is, what do we consider to be sufficient provocation for war?

Right now we have a completely unprovoked act of shelling a civilian neighborhood, if this had happened to the US we would have responded with overwhelming force. Granted the Korean's have a different outlook on this being so close to the border with a country they have technically been at war with for 60 years but judging by the popular response people in South Korea want blood for this.

It seems that there are really four options the South Korean's can take on this:

1) Proportional Response: If the North Koreans decide to start shelling the South, respond in kind. They sink one of your ships, respond by sinking two of theirs. This has the advantage of keeping a lid on how far the situation escalates, but it can easily lead to brinkmanship.

2) Overwhelming Response: If the North decides to shell the South, launch an aerial campaign and bomb the hell out of their artillery batteries in return. Stop short of an all out war, but make it clear that this action will not be tolerated. This could easily lead to an all-out conflict though since the North would be forced to respond due to internal pressures.

3) Preemptive Strike: Neutralize the North's ability to make war. Bomb them back to the stone age and accept that you are going to lose a lot of people doing so, but that the threat will be eliminated.

4) Do Nothing: Politically unfeasible and will just cause the North to take more and more invasive actions in the future.

I think that moving a carrier group into the Yellow Sea for a little old fashioned gunboat diplomacy was a good move by the US on behalf of the South Koreans. Sure it pisses the hell out of China but these are the people who have been propping up this regime for years and to hell with what they think about this. If Beijing can't keep their rabid dog on a leash then they are going to have to live with the consequences of the neighborhood taking the matter into their own hands.

If North Korea decides they want to commit suicide by escalating this conflict then there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. But the best way of avoiding a conflict is going to be and overwhelming display of just what is going to happen to them if they decide to take this any further.

[The Kernel]

Personally I don't think war should even be considered until we can provide some kind of relative guarantee of safety for the people living within range of the Nork guns. If that happens to be never, then so be it.

Yeah, sure, it'd feel good to bomb the shit out of somebody who's actually deserved it--until the casualty figures started rolling in and half the people I know started losing relatives. It's not worth the cost in human lives and suffering by any stretch of the imagination, if you ask me.

So what is the alternative? Allow the North to continue its aggression unchecked?

I agree that we haven't reached the point of needing to go to war yet over this, but what if the North Korean's decide to go even further? What if they sink another South Korean ship or start taking shots at residential neighborhoods again? How would you respond?

[hongi]

Or once they get their nuke program running, it'll be even worse. SK will be even more reluctant to wage war with NK, meaning NK has no incentive not to escalate its attacks in size and scope. NK could just take down an apartment building and SK would still sit on its hands and weigh a nuclear war vs the deaths of a few hundred.

[Ritterin Sophia]

That's not an easy decision for those guys, and I think the most important things go beyond just the un/conventional military defeat of North Korea. For all we know, the whole blowing stuff up and defeating the Norks maybe be the easy part of the whole reunification business. Or, if we count our lucky stars, maybe eventually after years and years and years, the North Korean regime and its leader cult may attenuate and the country will gradually loosen up and by the 2050s, they'll reunify rather quietly without huge explosions? Or is that pure wishful thinking? It probably is. But, man, in the 1960s no one would've expected how the Soviet Union would've ended up even with all of their bestest 1960s graphs. So that is why I don't think anyone should be in a hurry for any prefix-emptive attacks.

For the former, the war is the easy part. The hard part is after the war as North Korea is in such bad economic shape that if we wanted to be callous, bombing everything flat would be more economical. We can see such with the reunification of Germany. The farther the North lags behind the South, the harder reunification is going to hurt.

For the latter part on the fall of the Soviet Union, that was actually predicted by George F. Kennan in 1948.

That is true. But then again, if the Norks are reliant on the international community, then as with the junkie example, why would they want to cut themselves off from their only source of the good stuff? They want more stuff, and they do their dickeries. But if they go beyond that and go to war, they know that that will end the flow of the good stuff.

So what does North Korea do when we say enough is enough and cut them off? What do they do then?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Personally I don't think war should even be considered until we can provide some kind of relative guarantee of safety for the people living within range of the Nork guns. If that happens to be never, then so be it.

Yeah, sure, it'd feel good to bomb the shit out of somebody who's actually deserved it--until the casualty figures started rolling in and half the people I know started losing relatives. It's not worth the cost in human lives and suffering by any stretch of the imagination, if you ask me.

I think the farthest anyone in this thread is willing to say is that if the ROK wants to press the issue then we should support them in doing so, but beyond that we're fine with the status quo.

As for the artillery pieces there was an anti-artillery laser system called the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL) and a mobile version (MTHEL) that was being developed by the US, I know Israel expressed interest and I believe South Korea has as well but I'm not sure how far along it is in development. I know it's intercepted numerous mortar rounds at once, artillery rounds, and rockets but I don't know what limitations it may have.

[Shroom Man 777]

So what does North Korea do when we say enough is enough and cut them off? What do they do then?

Would we cut them off and risk that? Heh, I think that's what the Norks are counting on, our unwillingness to test them? But then again, why would the Norks go to such a level that would force us to cut them off and risk that, in the first place? Going there would be just as undesirable to them as it is to us. "What do they do then?" would be a question they would ask themselves, "what do we do then?". I hope they don't try to find out.

I think the farthest anyone in this thread is willing to say is that if the ROK wants to press the issue then we should support them in doing so, but beyond that we're fine with the status quo.

Agreed.

[Rabid]

So, question :

What if the Socks stop caring about the Norks, stop shipping them any goods, and buys China's benevolence, so that the PRC stop supporting the Kims ? If we just brick up the place on its north and south frontier, and let the North Korean People to its own fate, not embargoing / blocking them but just ceasing any economic or diplomatic relation with them ?
Will they just attention-whore there way with more and more violent provocations, or does this plan carry the slightest chance that they could, somehow, just chill out, and say : "Okay, listen, we've understood, we'll try to be nicer now... Maybe we could try to work together for the better, now ?" ?
Or am I just fooling myself ?

[MKSheppard]

A chinese friend pointed out several things to me:

1st: Threats do not last forever. People do become blase over time, but if you don't do it for long enough, resistance goes back down.

Example:
Abductions, attempting to assassinate Sork presidents repeatedly, shooting down airliners, murdering people with axes. Shelling Sork territory.

This is what makes current events so unusual -- they sank the Cheonan in the Spring, did some random shelling of South Korean waters in the Summer, and then shelled an inhabited island in the Fall, all in the same year.

2nd: The following factoids apply to Norkland:

They have like 7 million possible men in their military and paramilitaries. I mean, they have 90,000 SOF troops in the NKPA alone.

Creditable Air Force -- certainly more dangerous than Saddam in 1991/2003.

Large amounts of rockets with long ranges -- they have several hundred with a 700 km range -- that's enough range to hit some parts of Japan from near the DMZ.

Possession of nuclear expertise.

3rd: What Happens Afterwards?

So the Norks have either collapsed or been bombed into submission and invaded.

There are five major parties involved in this mess and all of them fear what happens, and there's no real universal trust between any of them.

US
S. Korea
Japanese
China
Russia

Who is to administer the North?

Who pays for it?

Who gets to station troops there?

For how long?

Under what terms?

Under whose authorities?

Whose investments are protected?

Will the place be demilitarised?

What about existing treaty rights?

What is the status of the North?

The Sorks have proposed a tax to pay for eventual reunification with the north, but it's only proposed. As a bonus, if they reunify, they now share a boarder with China.

Japan likes having Norkland as a punching bag for domestic pols. They don't need a more nationalistic and poorer post-unification Sorkland with NUKES from Norkland.

Russia would be faced with a South Korea sharing a land border with them, and only 80 miles from Vladviostock. Plus they got a lot of ethnic Korks in the Russian Far East.

China? Well, they have to worry about shittonnes of North Korean refugees trying to swarm into their territory, plus having to share a boarder with South Korea.

The US? Well, we'd be in the center of all the diplomanouvering, each side trying to peel us towards their side.

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe this exceptionally tense period with so much violence is also due to the exceptional period within North Korea, with its change in leadership? They blow up a boat, shell some folks, demonize the South and the West and the East and whatever direction of the compass they don't like, and then something-something, and viola their new leader emerges victorious and heroic in repulsing the depravities of the South and the West, or at least that's how their propaganda will depict it, and then business returns to normal?

[Sarevok]

I had been wondering about the North Korean civilians fate after reunification. The average North Korean is very poor. If the countries reunited would they really let people from North Korea walk into South Korea ? Its likely going to be a refugee disaster that would bring South Korea to a halt. On other hand if they don't allow fellow Koreans same rights then its one Korea in name only.

[Rabid]

I had been wondering about the North Korean civilians fate after reunification. The average North Korean is very poor. If the countries reunited would they really let people from North Korea walk into South Korea ? Its likely going to be a refugee disaster that would bring South Korea to a halt. On other hand if they don't allow fellow Koreans same rights then its one Korea in name only.

If think that for a decade or so they will impose a "visa", or some restrictive administrative thingy for the North Koreans if they want to come in the south, while they actively inject hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Won in the North , if not trillions. The basic idea behind this being :

"While they're poor, we try to fix them in the north by repairing and improving the infrastructure and launching a viable economy ; and we'll impose visa and restriction as long as the North's GDP/c is 70-80% inferior to the one of the South."

I think that would be a sensible thing :

You allow all north Koreans to come in the South "freely" 2 to 4 weeks a year, to visit their family ; you impose a light visa for the businessmen (just to prevent them from trying to settle like immigrants in the South), while discouraging emigration from the north to the south, even encouraging the reverse (making South's companies invest in the North) [1] ; and more generally you re-educate the whole Korean people in order for the old grudges to be settled once and for all.


The idea, behind all that, being to prepare the field for a real reunification, preventing the disasters that could come from a reunification being done in a hurry.


[1] : I think the best idea would be to organize exchanges, imposing children in the north to pass one to three months a year in an hosting family in the south, always the same, in order to create a "tie" for the young Koreans between the north and the south. Obviously, it will be the same on the other side : South's children will go to the North, and learn from that.
Can any German tell me how the re-unification of the West and the East has gone ? Has this idea been proposed or even put into practice then ? If so, what where the results ?

[Pelranius]

I found it hilarious how Galrahn on Information Dissemination and the others are expecting China to step up pressure on North Korea. The problem is, China's options with the DPRK are pretty inflexible: either do nothing or cut off supplies to the point that the KPW collapses. The Chinese have tried coups and supply interruptions in the past and got nothing for their troubles.

[MKSheppard]

The huge internal purge back in like 2002 or so of the NKPA was to get rid of chinese leaning officers from what I hear.

[Pelranius]

There was also an attempted coup in 1998 or 1999, supposedly with the MSS's backing. Unlike Iran, the ship for assisted internal regime change in North Korea seems to have sailed away a long time ago.

[ShadowDragon8685]

For all I know he could be in Korea, and if he is then that's fine. Disgusting, but fine.

I'm afraid I don't understand, how is being in Korea disgusting?

His whole "Give them what they want so they don't do more" thing.

[Phantasee]

It's disgusting for him to have an opinion on what his country's best course of action is? It's not like you have to live with the direct consequences of any choices made there.

But hey, next time we've got a problem up here in Canada, I'll give you a call. I'm sure you know what's best for us, too.

[ShadowDragon8685]

It's disgusting for him to have an opinion on what his country's best course of action is? It's not like you have to live with the direct consequences of any choices made there.

Appeasement is disgusting to me, no matter how you try to justify it. It's bribing a bully to go away, and that only encourages the bully to hit you again next time he wants more. I read a phrase, once, that sums it up nicely. "Go and prepare your Danegeld, if you wish. But you will never be rid of the Dane."

Or in this case "if you pay off the Norks now, then next time they're having a succession problem and/or want more electricity and food, they're just going to do it again."

If he wants it to become an accepted fact of life that whenever North Korea wants something, or just needs to shore up internal solidarity, they're going to buy it with the lives of his countrymen, then so be it. It's disgusting, and hopefully they never extort their supplies or propaganda by dropping a shell on him or anyone he knows.

But it's still disgusting in my opinion. It's caving in to extortion, pure and simple. If it had happened to the United States, we'd already be in the process of pounding the motherfuckers responsible into the stone age, or at the worst preparing to do so.

But hey, next time we've got a problem up here in Canada, I'll give you a call. I'm sure you know what's best for us, too.

The answer is "produce condoms, beer, maple syrup; then use simultainously."

[Phantasee]

Maybe the key idea you should take away from this is that it didn't happen to the United States, and perhaps other countries have different attitudes and perspectives on the issue? Fingolfin has given us his perspective, from much a much closer geopolitical location than you. If Metahive is in South Korea, or even if he only has family there, perhaps he is a good channel into the South Korean perspective.

They don't look at it as appeasement; they seem to be looking at the situation as someone trying to provoke them, and they don't want to rise to the bait. They've already put up with plenty of North Korea's antics in the past. I think it has become an accepted fact of life.

Perhaps their cost/benefits calculations count costs and benefits differently than you?

[Chris OFarrell]

An interesting theory I heard being thrown around in the last week is that China backs North Korea as much as they do, partially because the US keeps backing Taiwan as much as they do.

The PRC Government doesn't really LIKE North Korea, I mean who does, but they back them partially as a buffer against the US having a de-facto land border with them, and partially because they keep seeing the US selling advanced weapons to Taiwan without being able to do anything about it, so as a result, instead of condemning incredibly clear acts of aggression by the North, they just equivocate and hum a little before saying 'everyone should calm down'. THEY know what is really going on, and they know everyone knows they know, but there you go.

Of course, we all know the main reason China backs the North is that the status quo is infinity better to them then a collapse and all the problems that would bring. And they are absolutely willing to sacrifice as many South Koreans as it takes to keep this going.


Now if Seoul, 11 million people and 80% of the ROK economy wasn't 'under the gun' as it were, things would probably be very different, but then again, we probably would have had another Korean war a long time ago, when they were a lot stronger and had the backing of China and the USSR, so...