Korean situation thread

[mr friendly guy]

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.

Not to mention they have also tried the carrot approach with Kim Jong Ill, but the North Korean government don't seem to be buying.

There have also been suggestions by Chinese academics to reconsider their special relationship with the North, which AFAIK the government aren't censoring them. So far the PRC responds with their usual everyone calms down line.

[K. A. Pital]

What is the likelihood of Pakistan going down loudly? You ask these questions as if you could calculate the chances and make a reasonable decision to megadeath DPRK. Why not also megadeath Pakistan - one less unreliable nuclear state, right?

This first assumes I support and trust Pakistan, I don't.

The purpose was different. It was to show that if you follow the logic of "elimiate unreliable nuclear state X now before they cause more issues later on" to the end, it can be applied to at least one nation-state other than the DPRK with little reserve.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Just ignore N. Korea and be done with it. Sure it means a few lives lost every now and then, but who wants to food the bill to repair the place after it has been bombed up? The bill is estimated to be a few times that of the bill to merger of East and West Germany, and the S. Korean economy will tank like a dropping rock, with economic ripples throughout the region. Does the United States plan to give a huge cheque to S. Korea? I doubt it, unless the US wants a QE3.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think there'll be such a huge momental cost of restoring DPRK, and here's why - it's autarkian economy is in complete shambles and scarcely anything there functions. A more likely outcome is the DPRK becoming a cheap-labour ghetto for the ROK. Building infrastructure in the DPRK is going to take at least a decade. And even a slight increase in income, investment and accessibility of oil and industrial resources would already make the life in (former) DPRK much better than it is now. The costs more likely will be distributed over the years.

[Artemas]

it is still going to be hugely more expensive than german reunification was though

[K. A. Pital]

Like I said, it depends on what exactly you're doing with the unification. The industrial base and most social indicators in East and West Germany were far closer in the late 1980s than the gap between modern DPRK and ROK. A German-style reunification is nigh impossible.

[Sea Skimmer]

Just ignore N. Korea and be done with it. Sure it means a few lives lost every now and then, but who wants to food the bill to repair the place after it has been bombed up? The bill is estimated to be a few times that of the bill to merger of East and West Germany, and the S. Korean economy will tank like a dropping rock, with economic ripples throughout the region. Does the United States plan to give a huge cheque to S. Korea? I doubt it, unless the US wants a QE3.

Well for starters the US could simply give them the budget we currently spend on keeping troops stationed in South Korea, which is around 5 billion dollars a year. This would also create a political basis for a US withdrawal from Japan, something I do not necessarily agree with but which could save several billion more.

I think really if you could ever get past the direct damage-disruption penalty for fighting a reunification war in the first place, the penalty of absorbing North Korea would be more then manageable. Would it suck, sure? But another 30 years of defending against a Third Kim is going to suck too and requires hugely unpopular conscription to maintain. This price would become much higher if South Korea is forced into deploying its own nuclear weapons in response to an ever greater North Korean stockpile.

[K. A. Pital]

The question is, would the Third Kim be the same as the second after ascending to power. DPRK is a typical Asian despoty with a single god-like leader, and thus lots depends on his personality.

[Shroom Man 777]

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.

It's "disgusting" in your opinion because you're thousands of miles away in a continent where there is no threat at all to your person or your country - giving you a safety blanket and a false sense of assurance to make your high and mighty bullshit proclamations dictating what is "disgusting" and what is not "disgusting" for other people to do, other people who, I might add, actually live near the potential conflict zones and may have to face considerable risks and damage if they choose to do the dumb shit you say. What consequences do you face? The North Koreans are thousands of miles away, they can't hurt you - or at least, they can't hurt you as much as they can the South Koreans and - so it's just so easy and bloody convenient for you to say what's "disgusting" for the South Koreans to do or not do, from the safety and comfort of your well-indented armchair.

If its "disgusting" for them, the South Koreans, to choose the path they've taken, and ended up with fifty years without major destructive wars while allowing themselves to become an economic powerhouse in Asia, rather than go on the warpath due to the ill conceived disgusts of some know-nothing who is thousands of miles away cocooned in a red-white-and-blue star spangled safety blanket, then good. That's great. They can be as disgusting as they want. Because the only disgusting thing I see here are people who advocate this or that bullshit course of rash and potentially devastating and fatal actions while they themselves are insulated from these consequences, and can comfortably sit back and watch people thousands of miles away do the suffering and dying without thinking of the human implications of the people who are actually there, while having the arrogance to say that these people are "disgusting" or other such ill-conceived recto-oral refluxing shit.

It is so disgusting to see stupid Americans talking tough and judging the actions of people "disgusting" when these people actually have to face the consequences of their actions, while the stupid Americans are practically unaffected by virtue of living so far away.

Of course you probably won't even reply to this post, ShadowDraggins. You'll probably ignore it, refuse to answer this, just like those "disgusting" South Koreans or whatever you call these people in the midst of your hurf-hurfing.

[spaceviking]

So shroomy, how do you feel about the North Korean people near endless suffering under a dictator who cares nothing about their well being? I guess my point probably does not matter because I don’t live in Korean proximity, right? South Korea has maintained peace for fifty years and become an economic powerhouse, does not mean a lot when North Korea eventually gets nuclear strike potential.

[open_sketchbook]

Here's what I'm worried about. If North Korea ever gets reliable nuclear devices, they'll be able to do things like this... more or less every day if they wanted. Like, the choice between "horrible war, massive destruction and loss of life, lengthy rebuilding process" and "allow a series of dictators continue to run a torture camp disguised as a country." is bad enough already, but I don't think "Oh, and they throw a shell at South Korea every week or so just to wave their nuke-dick around" will improve the situation.

I loath to back the idea of a first strike because, yeah, people are going to get hurt and die and it's going to suck and I really don't have the right to say it here in my computer chair in Canada, but I think that letting people continue to live in a giant concentration camp forever and letting them kill people whenever they want to make a statement might be a larger amount of human suffering in the long run and so something should be done instead of just letting people starve on one side and get blown up without doing anything about it on the other. Especially when you consider that North Korea is going to go too far one day and when that happens, if they fire first, that would result in a massive number of civilian deaths that could potentially be averted by a first strike.

It's a fucking shitty situation any way you slice it. No matter what anyone does or doesn't do, millions of people are going to suffer and die, and if it looks like less people will suffer and die by letting North Korea continue existing or by striking first, then the moral obligation is to do whatever thing that is. In my inexpert and probably misinformed opinion, I think that a first strike to remove North Korean ability to harm South Korean cities is better than trusting North Korea with the lives of South Korean citizens with the knowledge that the longer we wait, the harder it will be to change our minds.

[Shroom Man 777]

spaceviking:

What would you propose? Freedomizing them just like Iraq? My point is that where the fuck does ShadowDragon come off calling the actions of the South Koreans "disgusting" when they do it and just take the North's blatant dickeries to avoid far more destructive conflict? Why does he say its "disgusting"? Because it doesn't appeal to his jingoistic tough guyism? Because its "appeasing" them? So? The South Koreans do this "disgusting" thing because they're actually threatened by the North, and if they do something stupid like what ShadowDragon wants, then they will suffer considerable loss of life and property. Yet the idiot feels high and mighty enough to call them and their policies "disgusting" when he has no stake in it and, unlike the South Koreans, is totally safe and immune from harm and is free to think up all sorts of bullshit.

It's fucking moronic to call an action done out of geopolitical, social and economic necessity "disgusting" when the people who do it are just trying to avoid ruining their fucking country. Calling them "disgusting" sounds like the slobbering of an impotent shitcock with no knowledge at all of any political realities of the situation in Korea, an impotent shitcock who's high-and-mighty sense of bullshit self-righteousness leads him to spout ignorant bullshit.

[open_sketchbook]

Yeah, that's fucking retarded. You don't go to war with somebody because not doing so means you have to *gasp* make some concessions. I think that maybe starting a war that is almost certainly going to happen anyway so that you can have the initiative in order to prevent civilian casualties might be different.

[Shroom Man 777]

Yeah, that's fucking retarded. You don't go to war with somebody because not doing so means you have to *gasp* make some concessions. I think that maybe starting a war that is almost certainly going to happen anyway so that you can have the initiative in order to prevent civilian casualties might be different.

The current situation isn't really leading to a war that is almost certainly going to happen. At least, I hope it isn't, not with Pudgy Little Kim 3 becoming a man and all that.

[Sea Skimmer]

The question is, would the Third Kim be the same as the second after ascending to power. DPRK is a typical Asian despoty with a single god-like leader, and thus lots depends on his personality.

Yeah a lot depends on his personality, and a lot depends on how much real power we think Kim Jong il actually has now. I really don’t know myself but North Korean communist party politics have utterly failed and the military has a great deal of power itself. The military may extended precious little power to a new Kim and avoid changes entirely. North Korea can after all simply wait until its population is starved down to a sustainable level as long as the military can hold order in the streets.

Its not clear what the military would want, since if they liberalize and then fall apart like the USSR did all the top brass is going to jail for life at best.

[open_sketchbook]

I didn't say it was going to happen, like, tommorow or anything. But in the long run, especially given that a nuclear North Korea will do even worse things to get attention because they think they can get away with it, there is way too high a chance that war with North Korea will happen and when it does allowing the Norks to get shots off with their artillery against cities will mean tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths. Hit them first, that risk goes away and the one advantage, the only thing the North Koreans have in that war, will vanish and the rest of the country can be pushed over.

[hongi]

I hope the next leader will realise that peacefulness will be rewarded more than random acts of turdassery. No one wants a war. No one's planning to invade any time soon, and in fact I think everyone would think it great if NK just kept to starving its citizens, as long as they stopped provoking the world. North Korea really is a petulant child.

[Broomstick]

I loath to back the idea of a first strike because, yeah, people are going to get hurt and die and it's going to suck and I really don't have the right to say it here in my computer chair in Canada, but I think that letting people continue to live in a giant concentration camp forever and letting them kill people whenever they want to make a statement might be a larger amount of human suffering in the long run and so something should be done instead of just letting people starve on one side and get blown up without doing anything about it on the other. Especially when you consider that North Korea is going to go too far one day and when that happens, if they fire first, that would result in a massive number of civilian deaths that could potentially be averted by a first strike.

Yeah, well, it seems to me (admittedly, sitting here on the other side of the world all safe and comfy) that the folks in the south, who are NOT currently starving/trapped in a concentration camp/whatever are not eager to trade their current status quo of comfortable living for a first strike that will result in many of those southerners, perhaps their own families or own selves, dying or being maimed or having Truly Horrible Things happen to them. The people currently alive now want a good life now and don't want to particularly die or get maimed for the benefit of other people - be they future descendants or their northern neighbors.

And I can't find it in me to fault their choice.

Seems most people are hoping to extend the current status quo indefinitely, at least past the end of their own lifetimes. How many people are willing to sacrifice their wealth, their families, their lives for the benefit of those other people over there? It's not that they hate the Norks, or bear them any ill will, it's just that the Sorks don't want to lose what they have.

[Lonestar]

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.

Aroo? I don't think Galrahn expects the PRC to do anything, I think he would want them to do something to rein them in besides, say, talking about "it isn't who is at blame but stopping escalation". The PRC isn't even verbally strongly condemning the Norks. Fine. If they don't want to even act like the Norks are acting like children, then we can just drive a carrier around in circles in their backyard.

[Metahive]

I think I have to clarify some things about myself first. I was born in Germany and have the german citizenship, but my parents are immigrants from Korea and most of my aunts, uncles and my grandparents still live there. I'm currently residing in Beijing until around mid-december.

What people who are thumping their chests and demand that the South stand up and "do something" about the North, preferably a massive first strike either forget or don't know is that the recent incident isn't anything special. Yeongpyeong island that was shelled is in disputed waters, it was arbitrarily decided by the UN to have it be part of the south, although it's much closer to the northern shore, I mean, just look at the map. The South stationing soldiers on it was taken as an aggressive act by the North and there have been several engagements in and around that island already as a result with patrol boat engagements in 1999 and 2002 that had way more casualties than this recent spat in younger history.

Yes, think about it, the North actually has legitimate grievance when it comes to the status of this island! I know this'll blow a certain person's mind.

Here's a map, the island in question is #3.



The North has done worse things. I already mentioned them blowing up a dozen south korean dignitaries in Rangun including the first lady in the early eighties. That's still the high water mark of northern aggression. The Kim Dynasty (fucked up there earlier by calling them Song, sorry) is a blight on its people, but a war won't make their situation better and as long as there are no informations that the North is mobilizing and amassing its troops for an all-out invastion, a preemptive strike is not justified.

Do not mistake the South "flexing its muscles" and reinstating cold war era + early 90ies policies (yes, the change to a less aggressive stance is very recent) for any sort of war-preparation. That's just a gesture, a necessary gesture to save as much face as possible. The South doesn't want a war and the North won't start one out of sheer pettiness either, they're not suicidally stupid.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think I have to clarify some things about myself first. I was born in Germany and have the german citizenship, but my parents are immigrants from Korea and most of my aunts, uncles and my grandparents still live there. I'm currently residing in Beijing until around mid-december.

What people who are thumping their chests and demand that the South stand up and "do something" about the North, preferably a massive first strike either forget or don't know is that the recent incident isn't anything special. Yeongpyeong island that was shelled is in disputed waters, it was arbitrarily decided by the UN to have it be part of the south, although it's much closer to the northern shore, I mean, just look at the map. The South stationing soldiers on it was taken as an aggressive act by the North and there have been several engagements in and around that island already as a result with patrol boat engagements in 1999 and 2002 that had way more casualties than this recent spat in younger history.

It isn't fucking arbitrary; the UN held those islands and quite a few other islands including islands actually located inside Wonson harbor right up until the Armistice. The Armistice explicitly spelled out which islands UN forces would retain and Yeongpyeong is one of them. All other islands were abandon and returned to North Korean control. Some were close to 100 miles further north! The terms also guarantee access to the Han River channel, which North Korea does have.

[adam_grif]

So just to get a gauge of the opinion here, how many people would support a first strike to overthrow Kim and start the reintegration of Korea by force?

[Metahive]

It isn't fucking arbitrary; the UN held those islands and quite a few other islands including islands actually located inside Wonson harbor right up until the Armistice.

Military control doesn't equal legal possession.

The Armistice explicitly spelled out which islands UN forces would retain and Yeongpyeong is one of them.

It is actually more complicated than that. The Northern Lime Limit which those islands in the map are part of was established after the signing of the armistice and was already in dispute then. The UN eventually unilaterally drew the line as it saw fit.

A handy article on the islands
http://www.asianperspective.org/articles/v27n2-f.pdf

What is true that North Korea hasn't protested against the island's status until some time in the seventies, but that hardly speaks for its legitimacy. What I wanted to express is that this situation isn't one of clear-cut northern aggression. Compare that island's status to Kashmir now or Danzig in the 1930's if you wish. In short, squabbles and skirmishes around them are not something unusual as people here keep saying.

[Sea Skimmer]

Military control doesn't equal legal possession.

Well if you believe the UN has no legal power, then sure. But at that point law is nothing but what any given nations armed force says it is anyway. You might also notice that South Korea holds over 1,000 square miles of territory that was North Korean in 1950, while North Korea has a small slice of formerly South Korean land. This is all pretty much irrelevant and the former boundary was drawn by the US and USSR with only the most vague UN involvement and only then in the US zone.

It is actually more complicated than that. The Northern Lime Limit which those islands in the map are part of was established after the signing of the armistice and was already in dispute then. The UN eventually unilaterally drew the line as it saw fit.

Yeah it drew the line because North Korea engaged in a lot of bullshit provocations in 1953 and 1954 which killed the majority of ROK troops ever killed in DMZ incidents while refusing to negotiate any specific line.

What is true that North Korea hasn't protested against the island's status until some time in the seventies, but that hardly speaks for its legitimacy. What I wanted to express is that this situation isn't one of clear-cut northern aggression. Compare that island's status to Kashmir now or Danzig in the 1930's if you wish. In short, squabbles and skirmishes around them are not something unusual as people here keep saying.

Yeah you know it really is just a clear cut case of northern aggression and insanity. The North Koreans have always acted crazy and if they would have ever ever agreed to any kind of serious negotiation some kind of resolution could have been reached decades ago or in the original Armistice. You might recall that Armistice took over two years to negotiate. This problem for North Korea is being insane, they wont allow fishing boats to go anywhere they can’t have military forces follow to ensure they come back. So any kind of deal allowing for free passage of North Korean fishing vessels into South Korean waters is unacceptable, and South Korea would have to be insane to fully cede the waters to someone who engages in so much amphibious infiltration.

[Metahive]

Sea Skimmer, I am not going to argue what does and what does not constitute a legitimate territorial claim, that's a science for itself (have you read the article BTW?), but I will concede on the issue since what I actually want to stress and which I crammed into the ass-end of my post above was that skirmishes around that particular strip of water are not unexpected for at least ten years now. So when people here keep saying how this recent shelling totally changed everything, they're wrong, it's not. It's business as usual. It doesn't make war any more a viable option then all those other outbursts of trolling that North Korea has pulled for the last 60 years now.

I must also address something else, the opinion that South Korea is somehow suffering deep humiliation by tolerating these repeated north korean acts without going to war. Just think about it, every South Korean knows that the North is economically inferior, that the standard of living is sub-third world level and that the quality of life sucks ass over there. For them North Korea engaging in all these acts of jackassery is just like the impotent flailing of a decrepit runt of the litter which knows it's been left behind in the dust years ago by its successful littermates. Not allowing someone like this to dicate your actions in any major way is par of course. You might call it confucian.