Korean situation thread

[Formless]

Okay, I think I understand, only mods are allowed to make polite requests for civil conversation. They're the only people allowed to hold civil conversations. The rest of us should, nay are obligated to scream and yell past each other at every opportunity.

Dude, I know this is going to sound shocking, but no one here cares whether or not the conversation is "civil" but you. As long as it is intelligent, which so far it seems to be.

And as far as I can see it's mainly just calling everyone he disagrees with a name and misrepresent their actual position, which he's done throughout the thread.

Save for all those times he stressed that being there or having ties to people that are there means actually having to live with the consequences of a war, which armchair generals tend to ignore?

[Metahive]

Hans Landa Portrait Guy, it is more than telling that you can't do better than to resort to transparent concern and tone trolling against me. If that's the best you've got I will cease replying to you, I really have better people to debate with here, even Dragon who's at least honest about his delusions.

And as far as I can see it's mainly just calling everyone he disagrees with a name and misrepresent their actual position, which he's done throughout the thread.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Metahive out.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Looks to me the North Koreans are putting the South in a rock and a hard place, either they respond or the obviously provocative move will cause them to lose faith and look weak, or the South looks like hypocrites for attacking what seems to be a training exercise.

Couldn't the ROK state that it has reasonable suspicions that those shots may be the opening shots of a DPRK civil war and move units towards the border "in case of attack?"

[Shroom Man 777]

It already has moved more troops to that island.

[Ritterin Sophia]

What if the war doesn't end after nearly a decade of occupation and counter-insurgency, with North Korea turning into Super Iraq, having South Korea and the US go 'MISSION ACCOMPLISH' only to end up just like the Coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq facing all sorts of grueling years-long combat with bodies piling up, eh?

Like I said before, I don't support a preemptive attack, but neither of the major concerns with Iraq and A-Stan (Lack of focus and troops deployed to secure weapons and police) actually apply with North Korea, the problem with North Korea are two fold: What will China do and who is going to foot the bill to rebuild?

China hates North Korea as well, they barely got along during the Korea War where the DPRK were reluctant to allow China to use their rail lines to move troops and equipments to protect them, even when that was all that was standing between UN Forces and a united Republic of Korea. Time has not healed this divide. So it's a very good question of will China help the DPRK? It's unlikely they'll stand aside whilst America has troops on the other side of the Yalu River, so will they 'help' and set up a newer more pliant buffer state? These are questions to be asked and I'm not sure anyone can say for certain which way it will go with any degree of certainty.

On the rebuilding front if the war does occur then South Korea is in no shape to help rebuild since they've just suffered major damage to their largest city. The rest of the world is still recovering from a financial crisis, so I don't think we're in any shape to do so either.

The problem is, the longer we wait the worst the outcome gets. Both sides have their arguments and both rely on gambling on other peoples' lives, and so I find it hard to believe that anyone can say for certain which option is best. Thus de facto locking us in status quo.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Dude, I know this is going to sound shocking, but no one here cares whether or not the conversation is "civil" but you. As long as it is intelligent, which so far it seems to be.

-snip-
Save for all those times he stressed that being there or having ties to people that are there means actually having to live with the consequences of a war, which armchair generals tend to ignore?

Appeals to emotions are not intelligent arguing except in the most dishonest fashion where you consider manipulating the audience a better outcome rather than actual logic. Logic dictates objective value over subjective after all.

Couldn't the ROK state that it has reasonable suspicions that those shots may be the opening shots of a DPRK civil war and move units towards the border "in case of attack?"

They could but that still causes them to lose face, remember they said any provocative act would result in a strike against a DPRK missile base.

[Metahive]

O great, now you bring that bullshit back up and I can't help but reply to it.

Appeals to emotions are not intelligent arguing except in the most dishonest fashion.

How exactly is saying that wars have negative consequences on people living in the warzone an appeal to emotion? Should the potential cost in human lives not be taken into consideration when deciding about going to war? Too hippy for you I guess.

Don't accuse others of logical fallacies when you so grossly mishandle them.

[Formless]

Look, I'm just going to leave one last post here before going to bed. I get that you don't like heated, angry arguments; but not everyone who insults his opponents is just trying to angry up the blood or drag the thread into a ragefest, and not all who are will succeed in any case.

Appeals to emotions are not intelligent arguing except in the most dishonest fashion.

Ignoring for a moment that his is an ethical argument intended to give people an idea of what the thought processes behind South Korea's decisions, the post I was objecting to did not cover what was wrong with his arguments. It was, in fact, nothing more than an appeal to civility, one out of multiple you've made in this thread. After all, if it was just a "polite request", what would you have said if he just, say, declined? As is, presumably, his right? Continue making it, arguing for pages that he should tone down his rhetoric *? How is that not worthless to the discussion?

* and yes, this is one more reason I'm leaving the thread now.

[Shroom Man 777]

Like I said before, I don't support a preemptive attack, but neither of the major concerns with Iraq and A-Stan (Lack of focus and troops deployed to secure weapons and police) actually apply with North Korea, the problem with North Korea are two fold: What will China do and who is going to foot the bill to rebuild?

Can we 100% say that a hypothetical war with North Korea and the subsequent occupation won't meet the same pitfalls as Iraq or Afghanistan, or entirely different ones? I'm not knowledgeable enough to pretend to know crap about the matter, but we are both in agreement that it's something that's not going to be easy. Straddling South Korea with an entire new third world nation (after blowing it to pieces) is going to have crazy effects.

The problem is, the longer we wait the worst the outcome gets. Both sides have their arguments and both rely on gambling on other peoples' lives, and so I find it hard to believe that anyone can say for certain which option is best. Thus de facto locking us in status quo.

My main problem just lies in the nauseating attitude certain people like ShadowDragon and co. have in somehow knowing what's best and advocating retarded positions despite knowing jack shit about the matter, to the point of calling South Korea's policies for the last fifty plus years "disgusting" even though this was motivated by them not wanting a major destructive war with all the crap that entails, and their disregard for those people who actually live there, all the while blathering on and on about stupid tactico-strategico-militaro crap, fetishizing about first strikes with NBCs or incendiaries to make themselves sound like Big Men to compensate for their tininess.

We both agree that whatever happens, it should be the ROK calling the shots and the USA backing them up, rather than the United Shadow Asses dictating what to do and spouting "disgusting" nonesense. Let the people who are there decide, and let the fat posers shut their cholesterol-ridden traps up.

[Ritterin Sophia]

How exactly is saying that wars have negative consequences on people living in the warzone an appeal to emotion? Should the potential cost in human lives not be taken into consideration when deciding about going to war? Too hippy for you I guess.

Who said anything about hippies? No, it's an appeal to emotion because you directly brought your family into this, saying that proponents of a first strike aren't there and don't know the people living in the war zone. By the same measure you don't see the people starving to death in Korea, or I could say, 'well how do you think the ROK Soldiers and Marines feel'?

Both are equally irrational.

Can we 100% say that a hypothetical war with North Korea and the subsequent occupation won't meet the same pitfalls as Iraq or Afghanistan, or entirely different ones? I'm not knowledgeable enough to pretend to know crap about the matter, but we are both in agreement that it's something that's not going to be easy. Straddling South Korea with an entire new third world nation (after blowing it to pieces) is going to have crazy effects.

The problem with Iraq doesn't apply because the South has six million soldiers in reserve to flood the country. Afghanistan doesn't apply because the person doing most of the legwork is South Korea, who literally can't lose focus because it's right on their border.

My main problem just lies in the nauseating attitude certain people like ShadowDragon and co. have in somehow knowing what's best and advocating retarded positions despite knowing jack shit about the matter, to the point of calling South Korea's policies for the last fifty plus years "disgusting" even though this was motivated by them not wanting a major destructive war with all the crap that entails, and their disregard for those people who actually live there, all the while blathering on and on about stupid tactico-strategico-militaro crap, fetishizing about first strikes with NBCs or incendiaries to make themselves sound like Big Men to compensate for their tininess.

I make no arguments on Shadow Dragons behalf, he's already been here long enough that you can pretty much guess whatever opinion he has is going to be wrong. Now does that mean that there aren't valid arguments to be made for a first strike? Certainly not. Does that mean we should go along with it, though? No, because there are valid concerns which the majority of the people screeching 'warmongerer' (You're not included in this group) have failed to bring up.

We both agree that whatever happens, it should be the ROK calling the shots and the USA backing them up, rather than the United Shadow Asses dictating what to do and spouting "disgusting" nonesense. Let the people who are there decide, and let the fat posers shut their cholesterol-ridden traps up.

Indeed.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Missed this when I responded to Shroomy and Metahive.

Ignoring for a moment that his is an ethical argument intended to give people an idea of what the thought processes behind South Korea's decisions, the post I was objecting to did not cover what was wrong with his arguments. It was, in fact, nothing more than an appeal to civility, one out of multiple you've made in this thread. After all, if it was just a "polite request", what would you have said if he just, say, declined? As is, presumably, his right? Continue making it, arguing for pages that he should tone down his rhetoric *? How is that not worthless to the discussion?

* and yes, this is one more reason I'm leaving the thread now.

I would've said nothing, just like I said nothing when he refused to oblige my request. All that it's going to do is colour my perception of him, in that I will rightfully think he was an overly combative dick who relishes yelling at people rather than actively exchanging ideas. As myself and Shroomy have done. I'll just change my method of debate to address the onlookers rather than him when I rebut his arguments.

The only person arguing the why is you.

It's the multiple cries of 'warmonger' to people like myself who are clearly undecided, even though I laid out the benefits of another war and what the problems would be in achieving those benefits or the risks we incur in attempting to do so, that I have a problem with.

[Shroom Man 777]

The problem with Iraq doesn't apply because the South has six million soldiers in reserve to flood the country. Afghanistan doesn't apply because the person doing most of the legwork is South Korea, who literally can't lose focus because it's right on their border.

Can South Korea commit such large numbers of troops to COIN ops? Are those conscripts or volunteers? Just because they have those troops doesn't mean they want to do so. While the USA will thankfully not get bogged down in the occupationing, since that'll be South Korea's problem... well, that will still be a problem for South Korea.

But then again, since these South Koreans are the North Korean's neighbors, not a foreign occupier, not gaijin or infidels or crusaders or such... hurm... yeah, you may be right. The occupation outlook doesn't look as grim. Maybe.

I make no arguments on Shadow Dragons behalf, he's already been here long enough that you can pretty much guess whatever opinion he has is going to be wrong.

Now does that mean that there aren't valid arguments to be made for a first strike? Certainly not. Does that mean we should go along with it, though? No, because there are valid concerns which the majority of the people screeching 'warmongerer' (You're not included in this group) have failed to bring up.

There are valid concerns for the future state of North Korea. Its nuclear weapons, its inevitable destabilization, its continued deterioration, etc. But are these enough to justify war? IMO, no. But I guess people have different criteria for judging war-justificationability. I mean, there are other folks who are okay with preemptive strikes on Iraq due to the dubious WMD thing, which turned out to be totally false, but they still say that invading Iraq was right. North Korea actually has WMDs, so it would already meet and exceed their criteria.

[Metahive]

Who said anything about hippies?

No, it's an appeal to emotion because you directly brought your family into this, saying that proponents of a first strike aren't there and don't know the people living in the war zone.

I repeat, how's this an appeal to emotion? I brought my family up because, boo-hoo, I happen to have one living in what people where arguing should have better been a warzone yesterday. I apologize for boring you with my personal details. That's also a gross misrepresentation of my argument anyway as I said that people who casually demand war to happen should think about that someone has to pay the price and to make it easier, imagine having relatives there. What's wrong about that? After all, I'm dealing with the likes of Shadow Dragon and Chaotic Neutral here.

I repeat, I demanded that people keep in mind the potential cost in human lives that a war inevitably brings with it! That's not appealing to emotion, that's appealing to personal ethics.

By the same measure you don't see the people starving to death in Korea, or I could say, 'well how do you think the ROK Soldiers and Marines feel'?

Not applicable as a war won't improve their situations. False equivalence. I'm not crying for people to please think of the children, I'm telling people to not gamble with the lives of real human beings! What's wrong with that? Answer this.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Can South Korea commit such large numbers of troops to COIN ops? Are those conscripts or volunteers? Just because they have those troops doesn't mean they want to do so. While the USA will thankfully not get bogged down in the occupationing, since that'll be South Korea's problem... well, that will still be a problem for South Korea.

The insurgents have to have weapons to stage an insurgency, like I said before, the problem with Iraq is we only had enough troops to take down Baghdad, not enough to secure Iraq's weapons armories, or keep the local government from collapsing. I believe you remember Rummie's 'you fight with the Army you have, not the Army you want' speech? The South has been preparing for the return of hostilities for over sixty years now and has the troops and retrospective to learn from our mistakes if they already didn't know them (they were quite obvious after all).

There are valid concerns for the future state of North Korea. Its nuclear weapons, its inevitable destabilization, its continued deterioration, etc. But are these enough to justify war? IMO, no. But I guess people have different criteria for judging war-justificationability. I mean, there are other folks who are okay with preemptive strikes on Iraq due to the dubious WMD thing, which turned out to be totally false, but they still say that invading Iraq was right. North Korea actually has WMDs, so it would already meet and exceed their criteria.

Like I said, I agree, which was why I distinguished that while there are good arguments for the invasion, there are also some against the invasion that weren't touched on (China and the Bill for example). But I also don't have to agree with every argument made by the other side to reach the same general conclusion.

I repeat, how's this an appeal to emotion? I brought my family up because, boo-hoo, I happen to have one living in what people where arguing should have better been a warzone yesterday.

What 'people' did? I saw Shadowdragon say we should and then you said all the people on the pro-war side don't care about Korean lives, which I disagreed with. The major concern of the pro-war side is that a conventional war now would result in dramatically less loss of life than wait until every artillery piece has nuclear-tipped shells.

That's also a gross misrepresentation of my argument anyway as I said that people who casually demand war to happen should think about that someone has to pay the price and to make it easier, imagine having relatives there. What's wrong about that? After all, I'm dealing with the likes of Shadow Dragon and Chaotic Neutral here.

And as I said they are concerned that if we wait too long the war will not result in severe damage to Seoul, but all of Seoul disappearing.

I repeat, I demanded that people keep in mind the potential cost in human lives that a war inevitably brings with it! That's not appealing to emotion, that's appealing to personal ethics.

Go back and reread, note that I separated your personal appeal to emotions from the claim of 'reckless warmongers'. You can be right for the wrong reasons, the reverse is true as well.

I'm telling people to not gamble with the lives of real human beings! What's wrong with that? Answer this.

Do you realize you are also gambling with their lives? You're betting that when North Korea has tactical nukes they won't use them. I'm saying that blindly insulting one side for gambling with others' lives is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

It's a good thing I'm undecided as to what to do except support South Korea's choice.

[Prannon]

It should be noted that one of the main reasons that the Northerners want nuclear weapons so badly is not to use them but to gain extra leverage over the South and over the US, which has covered South Korea with its nuclear umbrella for decades. That is to say, if the Northerners attacked in a bad enough way, the nuclear umbrella would apply. The North has felt that it had little choice but to counter this in order to try and save face and to deter what they consider a likely first strike scenario.

I don't think that Northern leadership is honestly insane enough to want to use nuclear weapons to try and achieve their goal of national unification under their regime. For one thing, if they did use the nukes on a target like Seoul, well...there goes all of South Korea's money and industrial might which they desperately need to make their state viable again. They know how screwed up they are, and they are looking with extremely envious eyes to the South for all that capital. That's what they really want. That's what they want to tap into. That's what they'll never, ever have if they randomly decided to push the button one day, and as much as people say that they're crazy, they're not. Just really, stupidly inflexible and proud and face-saving in a typical Asian way.

[Ritterin Sophia]

My main concern is less with a war and more of a Civil War. What happens when the Kim family can no longer keep the nation stable? I fear that they may decide to use nuclear artillery in a 'spread the love' fashion so that if NK is fucked, SK can't take advantage of it.

Which is why I'm more interested in the THEL system for intercepting missiles than another war.

[mr friendly guy]

China hates North Korea as well, they barely got along during the Korea War where the DPRK were reluctant to allow China to use their rail lines to move troops and equipments to protect them, even when that was all that was standing between UN Forces and a united Republic of Korea. Time has not healed this divide. So it's a very good question of will China help the DPRK? It's unlikely they'll stand aside whilst America has troops on the other side of the Yalu River, so will they 'help' and set up a newer more pliant buffer state? These are questions to be asked and I'm not sure anyone can say for certain which way it will go with any degree of certainty.

Question. Do you think its advantageous for China to present an ambiguous line in how they will react? Or is it because China (as a whole) hasn't worked out how they will react as some commentators (can't remember the name) postulate?

[mr friendly guy]

As long as the war ends with millions of starving people eating, having South Korea and the US curbstomp North Korea is worth it no matter what the expense is.

1. If a hypothetical genie grants your wish at the expense of lets say the lives of half the world's population, is it worth it? If you say yes then you demonstrate your moral ineptitude. If you say no, then cut out your hyperbole and state exactly what expense you draw the line at, then its possible to debate the pros and cons of the various options. If you say genies don't exist or avoid the question in anyway, then you show yourself to be both a coward and lacking the maturity to take responsibility for what you said, after all you did say its "worth it no matter what the expense is."

2. How do you plan to support the millions of previously starving people after this curbstomp, given a) the world is in the midst of a financial crisis b) South Korea would be hit hard in such a conflict and hence also has to rebuild their own infrastructure c) America is mired down in Afghanistan and Iraq so will be limited in how much financial support and military support it can help in rebuilding and peace keeping.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Question. Do you think its advantageous for China to present an ambiguous line in how they will react? Or is it because China (as a whole) hasn't worked out how they will react as some commentators (can't remember the name) postulate?

I'm not the guy to ask, but if I had to take a guess it's because China doesn't know exactly what it will do.

Like I said, the Chinese don't like the North Koreans, but if they do nothing they lose face as the US takes out what everyone sees as their puppet (my feelings are the DPRK plays both sides against the middle), if they help the DPRK they lose the US as a business partner (this hurts the US as well but the topic is China) and I've heard it said that the reason the populace put up with the kind of repression that goes one there (admittedly not as much as we like to think) is because the PRC has been able to keep dramatically rising growth. It's been postulated the only reason China supports the DPRK, even nominally, is because we support Taiwan.

The most mutually beneficial option (like I said, not an expert and someone who's more knowledgeable about China feel free to tell me I'm being an idiot) would be that China helps the US+ROK to take out the DPRK and accept a smaller buffer state. The problem is I don't know how China is going legitimize said state and it means accepting that the US has troops closer to China than they used to be.

[mr friendly guy]

A few thoughts General Schatten

B.R. Myers proposed something like that, and he stated that the US should sign that their troops will not be stationed past a certain point. Of course there is still the other consideration for China, that is they get minerals from NK at discounted rates, but they also prop up the regime by selling them goods at "friendship prices", which I think is code speak for below the market rate. Will Chinese contracts be honoured under the parts of the former DPRK now governed by Seoul. Also how will NK collapse without refugees flooding into China. I hear they are building a giant fence between their porous border, but we have seen in the US how well that idea works.

On a side note, people refer to NK as a puppet of China. I thought a puppet implies that you can pull their strings, ie control them. B.R. Myers pointed out that even in the Korean war where NK's existence as a sovereign state was on the line, they refused to cooperate with the Chinese on several issues like the transporting of troops (which you noted) and also the Chinese had to stop them killing American POWs; thus why should we expect them to cooperate with the Chinese on somewhat lesser stakes, especially now that the North has nukes.

[Broomstick]

Have you not been paying attention? A "few first-worlders" dying is not an accurate win-loss assessment of a potential war on the peninsula FFS!

As long as the war ends with millions of starving people eating, having South Korea and the US curbstomp North Korea is worth it no matter what the expense is.

So... you personally would be OK with you going to Korean and getting shot up or killed for the benefit of North Koreans who don't know you, who view you as the enemy, and despise you? Because if you think there won't be a few Americans in the front lines of such a first-strike approach you're ignorant.

Unless you're volunteering to pick up a gun and go there yourself you're nothing more than hot air and posturing.

It's not going to be a "few" people dead, it will be a LOT more than that. Thousands, tens of thousands, more... Get nukes involved and the death toll could equal the survivors, and leave those left with very little with which to make a living. In other words, the worst case scenario here is not the south doing well and the north underfed, it could be half of everyone on the peninsula dead and no one getting enough to eat afterward, with a lot of maiming, illness, and early death thrown in. Ya, good idea.

Easy for you to spend other peoples' blood and treasure while you're safely sitting on another continent.

[Metahive]

What 'people' did? I saw Shadowdragon say we should and then you said all the people on the pro-war side don't care about Korean lives, which I disagreed with. The major concern of the pro-war side is that a conventional war now would result in dramatically less loss of life than wait until every artillery piece has nuclear-tipped shells.

As long as the war ends with millions of starving people eating, having South Korea and the US curbstomp North Korea is worth it no matter what the expense is.

'nuff said. No more on this, I'm tired of repeating myself.

And as I said they are concerned that if we wait too long the war will not result in severe damage to Seoul, but all of Seoul disappearing.

Without any evidence of course, just that the Kim Dynasty is evil, insane and stupid bla bla and will lob nukes at Seoul out of poor spite one day. You will surely accept that this is not sufficient to start a war. Magic 8-balls and panicky hyperventilating don't make for great counsel in such delicate situations.

Go back and reread, note that I separated your personal appeal to emotions from the claim of 'reckless warmongers'. You can be right for the wrong reasons, the reverse is true as well.

Except I of course never appealed to emotion. I did the exact opposite, I appealed to people to actually stop being hysterical and consider the facts which are that the North is in no situation to launch an all-out war and that a preemptive strike is therefore not justified. It's the pro war side that's constantly trying to forgo reasoning in favor of theatralic posturing, like claiming that something must be done because the Kim Dynasty is evil, insane and stupid and will totally do a nuclear first strike if they aren't stopped now. All without evidence of course.

No more on this either. Any more of your stupid misuse of logical fallacies will be ignored.

Do you realize you are also gambling with their lives? You're betting that when North Korea has tactical nukes they won't use them. I'm saying that blindly insulting one side for gambling with others' lives is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

If I'm gambling, I'm gambling with a better hand since I'm not the one here shrieking something must be done or OMFGEVILNUKESONSEOULLOL without a shred of evidence and under total disregard of the history of the conflict.

It's a good thing I'm undecided as to what to do except support South Korea's choice.

Cute.

To sum this up, unless it can be conclusively shown that the North has nuking Seoul on the agenda, the pro war side is playing with empty hands.

[Marko Dash]

How much support could we offer the R.O.K. without sacrificing positions in Iraq and Afghanistan? it seems like besides the DMZ garrison forces our help would be limited to airstrikes from the CVBG and South Korean bases, with the possibility of moving in more carrier groups for round the clock support.

[Broomstick]

Looks to me the North Koreans are putting the South in a rock and a hard place, either they respond or the obviously provocative move will cause them to lose faith and look weak, or the South looks like hypocrites for attacking what seems to be a training exercise.

Couldn't the ROK state that it has reasonable suspicions that those shots may be the opening shots of a DPRK civil war and move units towards the border "in case of attack?"

Well, sure, they can do that - the problem is that the Norks might well view that as "provocation" and an excuse to start shooting (again), thereby escalating the conflict or even setting off a shooting war. The problem is there is no way to know how the Norks are going to react actions like that, so you never know whether doing or not doing that will make the situation worse or not.

[Metahive]

Consider this, if there's even a slight chance that that there's a peaceful solution to the problem of the divided states of Korea, and there's still an actually good chance for it, every life that will be destroyed because the South launches a preemptive strike now will have been destroyed in vain. How many of the people here who clamor for war would be willing to take this responsibility and actually face the consequences of their actions? I want to know now just how serious you really are about this whole issue and how much thought you actually spend on it.

And before a certain someone again starts to whine I'm appealing to emotion, I'm fucking not. I want people to actually reflect about their thinking and no one will surely tell me that reflection is a bad idea when it comes to decide over life and eath, no?