Aratech wrote:I've also wondered this. It's been nearly sixty years since the war ended. Why in the world haven't they moved the capital to something not in range of every heavy artillery piece north of the 38th parallel?
I have a friend who travels to SK all the time for business purposes. I'd imagine mainly it's due to cost and such, since moving a city isn't exactly something you do casually. Additionally, there seems to be an attitude of resignation if war breaks out amongst a lot of younger koreans.. As in, if war breaks out, they figure they'll die anyway, and move on.
Yeah, I don't get that either. Or the resentment against Americans for the most ridiculous things, such as 'withholding quality beef from export to Korea'. There was a 10,000-strong protest against that last time he went.
I think the psychology in Seoul is like the psychology I've heard about in river valleys below a dam. If you start near the mouth of the river, few people are worried about the dam breaking and flooding them out- with reason; by the time a flood reached them they'd have plenty of warning and it wouldn't be all that extreme. As you move upriver towards the dam, people you poll will be more and more nervous about the risk of the dam breaking, rating the danger as higher.
But when you get very close to the dam, suddenly the level of public fear about the dam's safety drops to zero. There's a selection effect at work behind the scenes. If you think there's even a slight chance of the dam breaking, you'd have to be out of your mind to live within a few miles downstream of it, because you have effectively no chance of survival if it does break. Only people who are confident in the safety of the dam are willing to live so close to it, and people who do harbor fears but for some reason can't leave will try to convince themselves that it's safe. And if they don't succeed, then they'll do what it takes to move because they're afraid of dying in a flood.
By analogy, if you live a hundred miles from the border in South Korea, you can afford to be worried about a war. It won't drive you crazy, because you can tell yourself that if there's a war, you have a pretty good chance of escaping the immediate danger zone. And that the South Korean and US armies will stop the enemy from destroying your home. But in Seoul, under North Korean guns, you can't do that. Even if the North Koreans get crushed in the first day of the war, your home is still going to get blasted into a crater field. Thinking about it every day could make you go insane.
So the only people willing to live there are the ones who are convinced (or have convinced themselves) that there's no real danger of that actually happening. They don't think about the possibility of a war, telling themselves (truly) that there hasn't been one in over fifty years. Which leaves them free to do things like live in artillery range of the border and protest American policies as a way of showing they're not a complete puppet state.
No, Seoul is the first casualty of any engagement between N Korea and anyone else.
Sorry; I thought Phogn meant whether the U.S would trade a city in range of NK's BMs for glassing their own capital in retaliation, rather than preparing defenses against such a threat.
Aratech wrote:I've also wondered this. It's been nearly sixty years since the war ended.
Nitpick - the war never ended. Really. There has been a sixty-year cease fire but both South Korea and the US are still technically in a state of war with North Korea.
Why in the world haven't they moved the capital to something not in range of every heavy artillery piece north of the 38th parallel?
A good question. How often have other countries moved their capitals? I know it has sometimes occurred but it's not common.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote:A good question. How often have other countries moved their capitals? I know it has sometimes occurred but it's not common.
The two I know of are Brazil and the US. Brazil's capital used to be Rio de Janeiro, but in the 70's they moved it to Brasilia (IIRC, the transition still isn't quite complete). The US moved it several times in its early history, with Philadelphia, New York, and I think Boston all having been the capital at one point or another before DC. I can't think of any others off the top of my head.
I think we can be reasonably sure that any North Korean missile launch would be a test, not actually intended as a nuclear strike on the US. More likely than not any such long-range missile test would only be launched in the general vicinity of Hawaii, to prove that North Korea has the capability to hit the islands during any war. Of course even if a North Korean missile exists with the range to do that it probably isn't the most accurate of missiles to begin with so they would probably aim it well off from the islands themselves. I'm not even sure I buy that the North Koreans would try such a provocative stunt, though they are obviously pretty pissed off about the recent Security Council vote and have been more petulant and belligerent than usual of late. Shooting down such a hypothetical missile, needless to say, will probably bring more broadsides of paranoid invective and saber-rattling at the DMZ but would send something of a warning to Kim about just how much we'll take from him.
There is the moral of all human tales;
Tis but the same rehearsal of the past,
First Freedom, and then Glory — when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption, — barbarism at last.
-Lord Byron, from 'Childe Harold's Pilgrimage'
Broomstick wrote:A good question. How often have other countries moved their capitals? I know it has sometimes occurred but it's not common.
The two I know of are Brazil and the US. Brazil's capital used to be Rio de Janeiro, but in the 70's they moved it to Brasilia (IIRC, the transition still isn't quite complete). The US moved it several times in its early history, with Philadelphia, New York, and I think Boston all having been the capital at one point or another before DC. I can't think of any others off the top of my head.
China and Japan have also repeatedly moved their capitals, but considering the lengths of their national histories, I think that should be expected. It's hard to move an established capital without a major disaster and/or dictatorial powers; otherwise inertia will tend to keep them in place. That said, I would have thought a potential resumption of hostilities between North and South Korea would be a big enough potential disaster that the capital would be moved. Maybe the South Koreans feel the need to keep the capital at Seoul as a form of postuing against the North?
BTW, with regards to current missile range: BBC's chart from May 09
This shows that, currently, North Korea has very little chance of hitting anything important on Hawaii, given that the Taepodong-2 doesn't really have much accuracy and doesn't carry much of a payload anyways.
Also, it seems that capital moving is becoming rarer (perhaps due to more complex power structures - in the eastern roman empire, Constantine was able to move the capital from Nicomedia to Byzantine/Constantinople rather quickly due to the concentration of power).
The most recent one I remember is the Burman junta's moving from Rangoon to Naypyidaw.
Are you accusing me of not having a viable magnetic field? - Masaq' Hub, Look to Windward
starslayer wrote:The two I know of are Brazil and the US. Brazil's capital used to be Rio de Janeiro, but in the 70's they moved it to Brasilia (IIRC, the transition still isn't quite complete). The US moved it several times in its early history, with Philadelphia, New York, and I think Boston all having been the capital at one point or another before DC. I can't think of any others off the top of my head.
Germany moved its capital from Bonn to Berlin ten years ago. It cost a lot, and continues to cost a lot, because some stuff is still in Bonn, requiring constant shuttle flights back and forth, and so on.
South Korea has chosen a site in central South Chungchong province to house its new capital city.
"The Yeongi-Kongju area has been selected as the site for a new capital," Prime Minister Lee Hai-chan said in a live national broadcast.
Construction of the new capital, which has not yet been named, is due to begin in 2007 and be completed by 2030.
The $45bn move is designed to reduce Seoul's overcrowding and economic dominance over the rest of South Korea.
Government and administrative functions will be moved to the new city, and possibly parliament and the supreme court, although any sizable relocation is not expected to happen until 2012.
South Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun
President Roh made the relocation plan a key part of his manifesto
The location of the new capital was chosen ahead of three other candidates, Eumseong/Jincheon in North Chungchong province, and Chonan and Kongju/Nonsan, both in South Chungchong province.
"The new capital site was found to be the best among the candidate locations in terms of potential contribution to the nation's balanced regional development, ease of access and living environment," Mr Lee was quoted as saying in the Korea Times.
Mr Lee said land purchases would begin next year on the 7,100 hectare (17,540 acre) site.
Political issue
President Roh Moo-hyun has made moving the capital one of the core objectives of his term in office, and it fulfils a campaign pledge he made before elections in 2002.
He insists the move is key to the decentralisation of the country, and more balanced regional development.
But opposition parties have called for a referendum, saying Mr Roh's plans go further than originally announced.
The Grand National Party said in a statement that the plan should be reconsidered, and was against the will of the public.
The relocation still faces legal obstacles, and civic groups have launched a constitutional appeal.
But Mr Lee said that suspending the move would go against democratic principles, since it had the backing of parliament.
