Korean situation thread

[Ritterin Sophia]

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.

This is why I said it will be perceived as such, it's not true since the Chinese actually have far less influence than people think, but perceptions don't always match reality.

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

Our exchange began long before Chaotic entered if you remember correctly.

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.

I never said it was and what I'm saying is that both you and they require a gamble for your arguments. Your gamble is that North Korea will go silently in the night, there's is that they launch an attack that finally ends the 'peace' or go out in a civil war. There's no hyperventilating being done, except by you.

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.

See, there you go again. What I have a problem with is this good-evil dichotomy you seem to have and strawmanning the opposition. The concern isn't tomorrow or next month, it's 2020 or 2025 or 2030.

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.

Actually, you are the only one shrieking. And certainly no one is screaming about Seoul being nuked, with the exception of yourself of course, I've already said I would prefer to see how the THEL system has developed and how effective it is to see if it's economical to put a system in Seoul.

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.

By the same regard I can ask you to show that North Korea actually has any intention to peacefully resolve the matter.

[Ritterin Sophia]

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.

You made the claim.

[Metahive]

*snip tired old bullshit*

Sorry, but I really lost interest in reading what you might have to say, you've proven conclusively that debating this topic with you is not a joy but a tedious chore and I therefore consider the matter settled to avoid wasting further time that would otherwise be spend in going further in loops of you telling me what a crappy debater I am.

Goodbye, General Schattenmann.

[Kane Starkiller]

While the position of "let's not start a war over an attack that caused only a tiny fraction of the projected casualties a full scale war would cause and instead wait the North Koreans out" certainly has logic an merit behind it it is not without huge problems.
First of all what exactly is the treshold at which South Korea says enough and retaliates? Is it X/10 if X is the total number of projected casualties in a full scale war? X/100? X/1000? And whatever the number is should South Korea simply sit back and allow North Korea to make more and more aggressive attacks and feel out what the treshold is?

What happens when North Korea gets a nuclear weapon? Many people have pointed out that it is unlikely they will ever use it and I agree but the problem is they don't need to. If the position of South Korea is that it is willing to tolerate casualties into dozens or hundreds over fears of what artillery attack would do to Seoul what will they be willing to tolerate when North Korea has 10 or 20 nukes pointed at Seoul and other major cities?
Then even a death of a few thousand civillians in an unprovoked strike will look like small potatoes compared to what could happen if the North launches its nukes.
As North Korea stockpiles more and more nuclear weapons and South Korea gets more and more accustomed to tolerating attacks to avoid an ever more catastrophic war the number of civillian deaths and ransom North Korea will ask for appeasement can only grow.

[Metahive]

First of all what exactly is the treshold at which South Korea says enough and retaliates?

Dude, they already have. What we discuss here is an all out preemptive attack on the North.

What happens when North Korea gets a nuclear weapon?

They already have nuclear weapons. What they don't have is a reliable means to deliver them. Do some research before you reply first, please.

Many people have pointed out that it is unlikely they will ever use it and I agree but the problem is they don't need to. If the position of South Korea is that it is willing to tolerate casualties into dozens or hundreds over fears of what artillery attack would do to Seoul what will they be willing to tolerate when North Korea has 10 or 20 nukes pointed at Seoul and other major cities?
Then even a death of a few thousand civillians in an unprovoked strike will look like small potatoes compared to what could happen if the North launches its nukes.
As North Korea stockpiles more and more nuclear weapons and South Korea gets more and more accustomed to tolerating attacks to avoid an ever more catastrophic war the number of civillian deaths and ransom North Korea will ask for appeasement can only grow.

That's what we call a Slippery Slope. Thanks for playing.

[Kane Starkiller]

Dude, they already have. What we discuss here is an all out preemptive attack on the North.

Not really. They've done noting about sinking of the ship and the response here was simply small scale bombing of North Korean artillery positions which are certainly better protected than civillians on the island. Maybe that's enough to deter North Korea but I doubt it.

They already have nuclear weapons. What they don't have is a reliable means to deliver them. Do some research before you reply first, please.

I doubt anyone is unaware of their weapons test a few years ago, it doesn't really change my point of them not really having nukes in a form of usable weapon.

That's what we call a Slippery Slope. Thanks for playing.

How is it a slippery slope? If the logic is "don't start a war over an attack that caused only a tiny fraction of the casualties the war would cause" then the treshold rises proportionally with the total projected casualties of the war. If North Korea stockpiles 100 nukes that it can deliver to targets on South Korea then we are talking about a very high treshold aren't we.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What is with people and the notion of appeasement? Appeasement isn't about ignoring N. Korea, which is what the South is doing for the most part. Mind you, South Korea has for the most part cut off most aid to the North ever since the beginning of this year. As far as I can see, the South is doing its best to ignore the regional bully, and minding its own business. On the other hand, the North is seemingly determined to get attention which it isn't getting.

Threshold? If N. Korea launches a massive assault, most of it gets bombed back to stone age. As far as any one is concerned, N. Korea is just being prickish and everyone else in the neighbourhood is getting about on the business of getting their economies better.

[Kane Starkiller]

What is with people and the notion of appeasement? Appeasement isn't about ignoring N. Korea, which is what the South is doing for the most part. Mind you, South Korea has for the most part cut off most aid to the North ever since the beginning of this year. As far as I can see, the South is doing its best to ignore the regional bully, and minding its own business. On the other hand, the North is seemingly determined to get attention which it isn't getting.

Ignoring someone when he attacks you and hurts you is appeasement. Sometimes appeasement is the best solution but it is naively optimistic to assume the bully will just go away if you let him slap you around every now and then while you "ignore" him.
So North Korea attacks South Korea, then South Korea cuts off aid and then restarts it a few months later after "talks". That is not exactly a deterrent.

Threshold? If N. Korea launches a massive assault, most of it gets bombed back to stone age. As far as any one is concerned, N. Korea is just being prickish and everyone else in the neighbourhood is getting about on the business of getting their economies better.

So you say but it's obviously not what happened with the sinking of the ship or the shelling. Of course we can agree the attack wasn't "massive". Which brings us back to the question of what is "massive" and how "massive" relates to total firepower North Korea possesses.
The goal for North Korea is to find out how many civillian losses South Korea can't tolerate but still isn't willing to risk all out war for it. That area is basically where South Korea has no option but to pay off North Korea not to attack. As North Korea stockpiles nukes in the future that area increases and so does the payoff.
If South Korea is willing to live with that that's fine. But don't think that North Korea will just "go away" if you ignore its attacks.

[Broomstick]

They already have nuclear weapons. What they don't have is a reliable means to deliver them. Do some research before you reply first, please.

I doubt anyone is unaware of their weapons test a few years ago, it doesn't really change my point of them not really having nukes in a form of usable weapon.

In August of 1945 the US basically just shoved a big pile of bomb out the ass end of a plane, but we still created a lot of mayhem and destroyed two cities that way. The North Koreans have a comparable capability, at the very least, the main difference being that the rest of world knows about nukes, unlike in 1945, and is watching for them.

A fancy deployment system makes it easier to use nukes in an efficient manner, but strictly speaking it's not required when the target is as near as South Korea is to North Korea.

That is, of course, leaving aside the issue of "dirty bombs", which just need some bog-standard medical waste from a type of facility common the world over, which has already accidentally killed people when said waste wasn't properly disposed of.

I don't think the Norks are going to be spreading Dusty Death or dropping a "Little Boy" or "Fat Man" on Seoul tomorrow, but the nuclear threat is real, even if not overwhelming at the moment.

[Chaotic Neutral]

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?

Why would it end in an insurgency? Why would the North Koreans want to go back to how it was before? How much loyalty would any of the soldiers have to North Korea once they find out all of their propaganda is a lie?

Jesus Christ, again I repeat myself - when do you people and ShadowDragonoids, who are safe and secure thousands of miles away from the potential warzone, get off advocating war and such shit when the people who actually live there don't want that because unlike you safe and secure fuckers, they're actually threatened by war and actually have to live with the consequences of such a conflict? You even have the gall call them "disgusting" when they handle the matter in a way that isn't as fucking retarded as you bunch of shitheads, because its apparently "disgusting" to want to avoid a large and destructive conflict.

Safe and secure for the South means starving to death for the North.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why would it end in an insurgency? Why would the North Koreans want to go back to how it was before? How much loyalty would any of the soldiers have to North Korea once they find out all of their propaganda is a lie?

Because the North Koreans themselves fought and died to make their own (horrible) nation? Turns out these guys were actually enemies and did actually fight a war against each another?

Also maybe, just maybe, wars and subsequent occupations won't go according to the plans of insulated faraway Americans and Westerners who don't appreciate how difficult it may become for the people who will be doing the fighting and dying over there because their sheer fatness (and distances) insulates them from having to face any of these consequences the South Koreans may want to avoid?

Also:

Why would it end in an insurgency? Why would the Iraqis/Afghanistanis wanto go back to how it was before? How much loyalty would any of the soldiers have to Saddam Hussein once they find out their Minister of Propaganda was lying (and the Americans weren't committing suicide at the gates of whatever).

Safe and secure for the South means starving to death for the North.

And where do you get off telling what the South Koreans should or should not do with their own country and with their neighbor? Apparently, for ShadowDraggins it's "disgusting" that the South Koreans should tolerate North Korea's extortion because of the "disgusting" reason that - gasp - South Korea may not be too keen on getting its cities artillery-ed on and getting its people killed in major war.

Now, for you, it's also horrible that the South Koreans don't go and risk Seoul getting bombardment and god knows how many dead in casualties on both sides over a grueling and indeterminately long and arduous war against a nuclear/WMD-capable nation, to somehow wave a magic wand - hope and pray to their lucky stars that no unforeseen complications which are known to occasionally rarely miraculously happen in things like war (and the sweepstakes!) once in a blue moon - to somehow *poof* make everything happy with the liberated North Koreans embracing their newfound freedomification and getting properly nourished by feeding off the gumdrop lanes and rivers of chocolate and clouds that rain skittles and popcorn from the sky heedless of the practical impracticalities of their nation doubling in size and gaining a huge chunk of people they don't know what to do with! Wheeee!

God I love it when stupid fat Americans say this and that with their bullshit imperatives without giving a shit about what the people who actually live there in those places they talk about think, because often it turns out their ignorant imperatives to freedomize this or democratize that usually ends up backfiring horribly and they end up looking like a bunch of stupid fat Americans.

[Broomstick]

Safe and secure for the South means starving to death for the North.

Wee, gee, maybe that's why South Korea and China sends them food! South Korea sends food to north every year despite objections from the US and others for the simple reason they KNOW it's a problem, and because, well, they're decent people I guess.

Is it really that huge a problem that the South prefers to send food rather than bullets?

You realize that if a shooting war breaks out the South will immediately stop sending such aid, right? The day the war turns hot again North Korea loses nearly half its food supply. Even if, down the road, a strike/invasion/hot war results in a better life in the north in the short term it means thousands of deaths. On both sides. And WORSE hunger in the north than what we see today.

The war turning hot inevitably means things get a whole lot worse in the north. Immediately. More hunger, less medicine, people dying from violence. Gee, that would suck, wouldn't it?

[someone_else]

Voicing my support for the "invading North Korea is PLAIN DUMB" side.

I'm sad that some people must die in the trolling acts of north korea, but any military conflict will raise the killcount to unbearable and frankly unnecessary numbers of civilians.
Also, USA (since it's the only nation able to do this kinds of clusterfucks in name of hot air) will plow themselves right into another awesome Iraqistan-like situation, where you win the shooting contest against a wet paper official army in a week, but those little annoying beggars with ak-47 and simple explosives still hold the ground for a decade and you can't do a fuck about it.

If ANY ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO AVENGE THE BLAH BLAH BLAH instead of just waiting nature does its thing, I'd advocate to begin a covert mission to stage and finance a coup and kill off Kim Kong or whatever their leader is with all the high rank leadership people not in the coup.
Then see if they are less idiotic than their predecessor, otherwise kill'em off again and designate some nation that will have to supervise the rebuilding process, and keep sending moneny and aid until it gets better.

Any takers for that?
I know it is hugely difficult, but has that better chances of not being a major clusterfuck like a war would surely be?

[Archaic`]

There's been a bit of discussion over the past few pages about what South Korea "wants", with the assumption seemingly being that they don't want war at this stage. The question I'd ask then is, is that actually the case? The government certainly failed to act in a decisive manner, but is that something the South Korean people actually appreciate and/or want? Things like these make me question that.

EDITORIAL IN SOUTH KOREA'S JOONGANG DAILY
With our memories of the Korean War still vivid, this massive attack reaffirms the grim reality that such a tragedy can be repeated at any time. We strongly warn the North that if it still prefers to play with fire, it is destined to be demolished by the fire it starts... The provocation is a direct attack against the South. This provocation justifies any retaliation by us.

EDITORIAL IN SOUTH KOREA'S DONG-A ILBO
This incident has demonstrated yet again how dangerous and ineffective dialogue and negotiations are in changing Pyongyang... An old saying has it that if you want peace, you must prepare for war. As the North has crossed the line in committing this aggression, the South has no choice but to correct this misdeed through a powerful counter-attack.

Don't forget also, the South Korean defence minister resigned due to outcry from both sides of politics and from the public over the passive response to the crisis. His replacement Kim Kwan-jin is a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and is apparently known to be in favour of a much more aggressive stance against North Korea.

[mr friendly guy]

Voicing my support for the "invading North Korea is PLAIN DUMB" side.

I'm sad that some people must die in the trolling acts of north korea, but any military conflict will raise the killcount to unbearable and frankly unnecessary numbers of civilians.
Also, USA (since it's the only nation able to do this kinds of clusterfucks in name of hot air) will plow themselves right into another awesome Iraqistan-like situation, where you win the shooting contest against a wet paper official army in a week, but those little annoying beggars with ak-47 and simple explosives still hold the ground for a decade and you can't do a fuck about it.

If ANY ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO AVENGE THE BLAH BLAH BLAH instead of just waiting nature does its thing, I'd advocate to begin a covert mission to stage and finance a coup and kill off Kim Kong or whatever their leader is with all the high rank leadership people not in the coup.
Then see if they are less idiotic than their predecessor, otherwise kill'em off again and designate some nation that will have to supervise the rebuilding process, and keep sending moneny and aid until it gets better.

Any takers for that?
I know it is hugely difficult, but has that better chances of not being a major clusterfuck like a war would surely be?

From memory people have tried to confiscate North Korea overseas assets to weaken Kim Jong Ill rather than assassinations. If Kim Jong Ill can no longer pay his cronies expect trouble in North Korea, with maybe his now ex cronies doing the job for us. Only problem is the North have become quite good at hiding their overseas assets.

[Sea Skimmer]

They already have nuclear weapons. What they don't have is a reliable means to deliver them. Do some research before you reply first, please.

Why don’t you fucking do some first? The Il-28 can haul 6,600lb, that's enough for a first generation nuclear device if you don't pile thousands of pounds of armor on it. It would take an Il-28 at full speed about three minutes to reach Seoul. Decrepit as that old bomber might be no means exists to ensure that if the North Koreans sent several dozen over some of them wouldn’t get through. That’s more then reliable enough to put the nuclear destruction of Seoul on the table. 3 minutes is far too short a time to scramble fighters, defense is in the hands of whatever is already flying and fixed air defense sites which are themselves well within range of North Korean artillery. SAM sites don’t like being shelled.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ignoring someone when he attacks you and hurts you is appeasement. Sometimes appeasement is the best solution but it is naively optimistic to assume the bully will just go away if you let him slap you around every now and then while you "ignore" him.
So North Korea attacks South Korea, then South Korea cuts off aid and then restarts it a few months later after "talks". That is not exactly a deterrent.

Who gives a shit about a bully which has degraded to the point of a beggar on the street? Mind you, his only card is a faulty nuke. And fighting back with a bully which fights like a cornered animal and his trashing is going to screw the neighbourhood isn't going to help anyone. North Korea knows that anyone, even China, is quite prepared to gut them to hell. They know this, which is why everything they do is infantile at best.

Being an internet tough guy is fun, but it is completely out of touch with the reality on the street.

TSo you say but it's obviously not what happened with the sinking of the ship or the shelling. Of course we can agree the attack wasn't "massive". Which brings us back to the question of what is "massive" and how "massive" relates to total firepower North Korea possesses.
The goal for North Korea is to find out how many civillian losses South Korea can't tolerate but still isn't willing to risk all out war for it. That area is basically where South Korea has no option but to pay off North Korea not to attack. As North Korea stockpiles nukes in the future that area increases and so does the payoff.
If South Korea is willing to live with that that's fine. But don't think that North Korea will just "go away" if you ignore its attacks.

Unfortunately, everyone is happy with that, and has been for the last 50 damn years. Not least, the Asia has gotten way more prosperous and doesn't gives a damn about the resident bully which has instead degraded to the point of a jackdaw. The most S. Korea would do, is give a punch at the neighbour, but they wouldn't start a damn war over it.

[Metahive]

Why don’t you fucking do some first? The Il-28 can haul 6,600lb, that's enough for a first generation nuclear device if you don't pile thousands of pounds of armor on it.

O, that's even better! Tell that to Kane Starkiller who thinks they have none whatsoever now. I was just being cautious. Thanks for the heads up!

[Broomstick]

There's been a bit of discussion over the past few pages about what South Korea "wants", with the assumption seemingly being that they don't want war at this stage.

Oddly enough, I don't think all Koreans are alike. I expect that there is a range of views and feelings about what happened, just like in every other country. It would shock me if there weren't South Koreans calling for violence. They are not, however, the ones calling the shots right now.

[Metahive]

Not really. They've done noting about sinking of the ship and the response here was simply small scale bombing of North Korean artillery positions which are certainly better protected than civillians on the island. Maybe that's enough to deter North Korea but I doubt it.

Please leave the goalposts where they were. You were clearly saying they hadn't retaliated at all. That they didn't retaliate enough in your opinion is irrelevant here.

Here, your words again:
First of all what exactly is the treshold at which South Korea says enough and retaliates?

I doubt anyone is unaware of their weapons test a few years ago, it doesn't really change my point of them not really having nukes in a form of usable weapon.

SeaSkimmer just disproved you for me.

How is it a slippery slope? If the logic is "don't start a war over an attack that caused only a tiny fraction of the casualties the war would cause" then the treshold rises proportionally with the total projected casualties of the war. If North Korea stockpiles 100 nukes that it can deliver to targets on South Korea then we are talking about a very high treshold aren't we.

Do some research, the North has been doing that and worse for 60 years now, the threshold is much higher. Also, nukes make for crap blackmail when the response will be to get nuked in return.

[Broomstick]

While the position of "let's not start a war over an attack that caused only a tiny fraction of the projected casualties a full scale war would cause and instead wait the North Koreans out" certainly has logic an merit behind it it is not without huge problems.
First of all what exactly is the treshold at which South Korea says enough and retaliates? Is it X/10 if X is the total number of projected casualties in a full scale war? X/100? X/1000? And whatever the number is should South Korea simply sit back and allow North Korea to make more and more aggressive attacks and feel out what the treshold is?

What makes you think there a specific number written down somewhere? What makes you think it is solely numbers based?

Yes, the Norks are so far seeming to provoke without tipping into war. Personally, I think it's so they can make a claim that the South started a war, although why they bother I don't know. Everyone outside of North Korea will know they were the provoker, and everyone in North Korea will believe the official propaganda.

It's not just numbers - sometimes it's destroying a highly symbolic target, or killing a culturally significant event, or killing children rather than adults. You know, it's really not as simple as "kill X number of civilians to start war".

What happens when North Korea gets a nuclear weapon?

They already have one, you retard. Granted, it's pretty fucking crude but that's where the arsenal starts. Trust me, even crude nuke will ruin your day.

BEFORE AND AFTER:


OK, that was a crude device, not even delivered by airplane. In fact, they didn't even call it a bomb, just a test "gadget". I can't blame people who don't want one of those going off in their back yard.

If the position of South Korea is that it is willing to tolerate casualties into dozens or hundreds over fears of what artillery attack would do to Seoul what will they be willing to tolerate when North Korea has 10 or 20 nukes pointed at Seoul and other major cities?

No way to know.

As North Korea stockpiles more and more nuclear weapons and South Korea gets more and more accustomed to tolerating attacks to avoid an ever more catastrophic war the number of civillian deaths and ransom North Korea will ask for appeasement can only grow.

Only up to a point - there IS a breaking point. There is always a breaking point. Just where it is in this case I don't know - and I'm not sure anyone else does, either.

The US tolerate hundreds of deaths over 17 years before Al Qaeda provoked the US into a shooting war. The Koreans have been at a stalemate for 50+ years. Who knows?

Dude, they already have. What we discuss here is an all out preemptive attack on the North.

Not really. They've done noting about sinking of the ship and the response here was simply small scale bombing of North Korean artillery positions which are certainly better protected than civilians on the island. Maybe that's enough to deter North Korea but I doubt it.

Hey, fuckhead - maybe you didn't read beyond the headlines. It wasn't the South popping off artillery towards the North today - the North Koreans were the ones shooting in the North. Why? Who the fuck knows? Drills, wargames, strutting their stuff, whatever...

I doubt anyone is unaware of their weapons test a few years ago, it doesn't really change my point of them not really having nukes in a form of usable weapon.

If it goes >BOOM< it's a weapon. It's like saying a muzzle-loading blunderbuss isn't a "usable gun" - it's crude, but it kills just fine.

How is it a slippery slope? If the logic is "don't start a war over an attack that caused only a tiny fraction of the casualties the war would cause" then the treshold rises proportionally with the total projected casualties of the war. If North Korea stockpiles 100 nukes that it can deliver to targets on South Korea then we are talking about a very high treshold aren't we.

What the fuck, did someone make coffee with stupid instead of water today? That is NOT how the world works, you dumbshit. There's not some accountant in a back room tallying up deaths and saying "Nope, we're two short of declaring a war!"

Ignoring someone when he attacks you and hurts you is appeasement. Sometimes appeasement is the best solution but it is naively optimistic to assume the bully will just go away if you let him slap you around every now and then while you "ignore" him.

You know, if a child in a temper tantrum punches me in the knee it might hurt and it might leave a bruise, but I'm probably not going to hit the child in return. I'll try to contain the child in manner where the least damage is done. And that's what the world has been trying to do for the last 50 years with North Korea.

If a major world power really decided to steamroll North Korea it would be pathetic - like an big, adult male beating the shit out of a toddler. Aside from a few warmongers, no one really wants a war with North Korea. No one really wants to kill massive numbers of North Koreans - and that is exactly what would happen. It would be horrific. Why are you so opposed to trying to find an alternative? We can always bomb the shit out of them later if the attempts at peace fail - but once the bullets start flying in earnest again it will be awful, even if it just remains conventional warfare.

Threshold? If N. Korea launches a massive assault, most of it gets bombed back to stone age. As far as any one is concerned, N. Korea is just being prickish and everyone else in the neighbourhood is getting about on the business of getting their economies better.

So you say but it's obviously not what happened with the sinking of the ship or the shelling. Of course we can agree the attack wasn't "massive". Which brings us back to the question of what is "massive" and how "massive" relates to total firepower North Korea possesses.
The goal for North Korea is to find out how many civillian losses South Korea can't tolerate but still isn't willing to risk all out war for it. That area is basically where South Korea has no option but to pay off North Korea not to attack. As North Korea stockpiles nukes in the future that area increases and so does the payoff.
If South Korea is willing to live with that that's fine. But don't think that North Korea will just "go away" if you ignore its attacks.

You are assuming that the goal is someone to kill South Koreans. But I don't think that's what's going on. [WARNING: OPINIONS AHEAD]

- North Korea needs a foreign enemy to keep the populace docile while deprived. External threats are always good for keeping a population united and under control, particularly in times of crisis.

- North Korea is, apparently, undergoing a regime change. The new guy needs military credentials of some sort. Part of this may be manufacturing a justification for a 27 year old to be a four star general with essentially no military experience. Yeah, it's looks stupid as fuck from the outside, but they aren't doing it for the outside audience, they're doing it for internal consumption.

- North Korea is trying to extort stuff form other people. If they can do that without killing people they'll do it that way. In fact, most of the time they get away with just blustering, then people give them shit to shut them up and make them go away. Of course the problem is that once in awhile they have to actually break something so people will keep taking them seriously.

- North Korea really doesn't want to escalate this too much (I think, and I hope) as the real generals know they can't fight off the world. If they DID drop a nuke first they will have everyone and their cousin show up on their doorstep ready to perform the mother of all curbstompings.

- There is the problem that, if the Nork regime was going down - such as might happen if they are losing a conventional war - they might decide the hell with it and do a murder-suicide-by-nuke number on the peninsula. No one wants to see that happen. Which is a HUGE incentive not to start shooting again in this little war, a huge incentive not to back the Norks into a corner, and a huge incentive for the Norks to acquire a working nuke in the first place.

[Phantasee]

The South already retaliated: they sent shells back at the North Koreans until they shut up. Just because we haven't heard about the damage and casualties in the North doesn't mean they got off scotfree.

[montypython]

Yes, the tail wagging the dog - look like you're doing something to appease the folks back home, but without actually pissing off anyone abroad. Brilliant!

Now, with that out of the way, what I've been reading this morning leads me to think the Sorks are not so laid back this time, the general population agitating for stronger action. Which means if the Norks really want to provoke a genuine shooting war they might be getting close.

Let's face it - if either side really wants to start the shooting again there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop that.

The last exercises between Russia and China in the Northeast Asia region for instance were speculated to be possible contingency actions in case of a North Korea situation, so if worse comes to worse at least there would be some plans for dealing with such (i.e., damage control).

[Broomstick]

I'm sure everyone potentially involved has contingency plans. Sounds like China is trying to get everyone to calm down and stop pointing guns at each other.

Definitely a volatile situation.

[Sea Skimmer]

Thanks to the power of technology, an Israeli satellite has photographed evidence of the North Korean firing positions and South Korean counter battery impact craters.
http://defense-update.com/analysis/2010 ... ckets.html

Range from this position to the center of Yeonpyeong town is about 16,800 meters