WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Stark]

That's why I think media focus on Crackpot style YEAH STOP THE BADMAN stuff, emotive arguments for war. The last time this happened, Iraq was invaded and what, half a million civilians died as a result? I wonder why SK is happy spending money and building rapprochement instead of having a war!

[CaptHawkeye]

Much Bush administration rhetoric was focused around painting Hussein as Arab Hitler and Kuwait years before as the Middle East's Poland. Hence all those 'axis of evil' remarks and spins. The entire process about which Americans analyze the conflicts of other countries is basically designed to produce a desired answer from the beginning.. 'Go to war y/n'?

[Prannon]

Much Bush administration rhetoric was focused around painting Hussein as Arab Hitler and Kuwait years before as the Middle East's Poland. Hence all those 'axis of evil' remarks and spins. The entire process about which Americans analyze the conflicts of other countries is basically designed to produce a desired answer from the beginning.. 'Go to war y/n'?

I thought we were talking about Korea in this thread?

***

Ultimately, I think the point being made by Stark is this. The folks living in the line of fire aren't freaking out about this. I know this because I was living in Seoul during the Cheon-an incident and when those islands got shelled. We all got a bit nervous, but... I mean, you have to keep living your life and going to work and stuff. North Korea was right there, and yet it was never really part of life to the level it would seem to be based on the discussion in this thread. I felt perfectly safe the entire time I was there, and yet I would have family members back in the States worrying their heads off and telling me that it was time to come home because the Bad Norks were about to start shit and what not. I just never felt it, and I was like "Stop freaking out. Nothing's going to happen."

The only people "freaking out" about this are Americans, if you define "freaking out" as having a vigorous and serious discussion on the possibility of war and its implications. I've actually found this discussion to be very interesting and I respect Broomstick and Simon's opinions and contributions to this thread, mostly because war is very possible, even if it's extremely unlikely.

[ChaserGrey]

Welp, Kaesong's closed.

North Korea on Wednesday stirred up fresh unease in Northeast Asia, blocking hundreds of South Koreans from entering a joint industrial complex that serves as an important symbol of cooperation between the two countries.

The move comes a day after Pyongyang announced plans to restart a nuclear reactor it shut down five years ago and follows weeks of bombastic threats against the United States and South Korea from the North's young leader, Kim Jong Un, and his government.

...

North Korea's decision Wednesday to prevent South Korean workers and managers from entering the Kaesong Industrial Complex, which sits on the North's side of the border but houses operations of scores of South Korean companies, is a tangible sign of the tensions between the two sides.

It's also a move that could end up hurting Pyongyang financially, since Kaesong is considered to be an important source of hard currency for Kim's regime.

...

South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin said military action could be taken if the safety of the South Koreans in the zone were to come under threat.

They've done this before, but it sure isn't going to help. Particularly if they don't allow the South Koreans in the zone to return home.

[Broomstick]

Much Bush administration rhetoric was focused around painting Hussein as Arab Hitler and Kuwait years before as the Middle East's Poland. Hence all those 'axis of evil' remarks and spins. The entire process about which Americans analyze the conflicts of other countries is basically designed to produce a desired answer from the beginning.. 'Go to war y/n'?

Yes. We know that. You are aware that GWBush is no longer PotUS, right? And hasn't been for 5 years? You're speaking as if he's still in power. He's not. Even back then, W took North Korea off the "official sponsor of terrorism" list back in 2008 though I do understand where the DPRK might still be miffed about being on it at all. Obama has his faults, we all know that, but he's been ratcheting down the current US conflicts and is not at all eager to get into any more. I do have the concern that the current US administration will do something that inadvertently triggers a "hot" conflict, but then, I worry about that happening with all parties in this matter

I thought we were talking about Korea in this thread?

Yeah, me too, but we seem to be talking about anything but.

Ultimately, I think the point being made by Stark is this. The folks living in the line of fire aren't freaking out about this. I know this because I was living in Seoul during the Cheon-an incident and when those islands got shelled. We all got a bit nervous, but... I mean, you have to keep living your life and going to work and stuff.

Yes. And during the London Blitz people stayed in London and went to work and so forth trying to maintain as much normality as possible. People who live on the slopes of volcanoes don't worry about the mountain day to day but once in awhile they do blow up. No, this isn't exactly the same thing, and in fact, I find great comfort in that the South Koreans, by and large, are not expressing concern even if their government and media are, but the man in the street isn't always right.

The only people "freaking out" about this are Americans, if you define "freaking out" as having a vigorous and serious discussion on the possibility of war and its implications. I've actually found this discussion to be very interesting and I respect Broomstick and Simon's opinions and contributions to this thread, mostly because war is very possible, even if it's extremely unlikely.

Thank you. And thank you for acknowledging that we are individuals and not simply generic clone Americans.

Yes, we know that the collective noun "Americans" does some dumbshit stuff. However, the individual Americans in this thread are not the US government and not the typical US citizens. We often have sharply differing opinions from our government (North Korea is the country where your thinking is regulated, not ours) and it would definitely help if some people could be bothered to treat us as the individuals we are rather than going RAR YOU SUCK! even if they hate Americans in general.

Absolutely no one in this thread wants a war of any sort, regardless of what any government may or may not desire. We're going on nearly a month since this thread was started and Pyongyang is still making one threat after another. Predictions that this would all die down rapidly have not been accurate so far. They cut off communications with the ROK (although last I heard the air traffic line is still open), and now they're closing down Kaesong, one of their few sources of hard currency. Much as I like to think Pyongyang is going to back down they don't seem to be doing that. Yes, the US overflying South Korea with stealth aircraft probably didn't help (and I stated that a few pages back) and the government of the ROK is doing some posturing of their own but this "crisis" originates from North Korea.

Maybe this is the new normal, right? Higher tensions, but no actual shooting/bombing. We can certainly hope so because right now that seems a possible outcome.

So, congrats Kim Jong Un (or your handlers) you've engineered a situation where the likelihood of something accidentally sparking a war is much higher, whether that was your intention or not. Fewer lines of communication is not a positive development. Restarting a nuclear reactor is not a good sign unless they actually use it for power generation (we can hope, right?) rather than weapons production.

According to the BBC Seoul reports that the South Koreans in Kaesong have been permitted to return, but the main obstacle is a lack of transportation back to the ROK. I'm wondering if the DPRK will be taking over Kaesong entirely for their own production purposes.

[Thanas]

Yes. We know that. You are aware that GWBush is no longer PotUS, right? And hasn't been for 5 years? You're speaking as if he's still in power. He's not. Even back then, W took North Korea off the "official sponsor of terrorism" list back in 2008 though I do understand where the DPRK might still be miffed about being on it at all. Obama has his faults, we all know that, but he's been ratcheting down the current US conflicts and is not at all eager to get into any more.

What people worry about though is that there were no consequences at all and that the same media/falcon apparatus that has been enabling the wars is still in place. Not once was there an address by the President condemning Bush and his ilk or even trying to have the most egregious offenders of well-documented war crimes punished. Instead, he actively tried (and still tries) to sweep everything under the rug.

So what has really changed? If your answer is Obama, then forgive me if that doesn't sound comforting considering the above, nor does it mean a lot considering if the president changes that same apparatus can go to work again.

[Broomstick]

I'm not happy about all that either. I would have been very happy if those responsible had been called to account for their misdeeds and frankly, the US could stand to be taken down a peg or two especially if it would help overcome the arrogance, exceptionalism, and head-up-the-ass qualities we have all come to despise. How often are such slime held accountable without invasion from without? How often immediately after they leave power? Obama's wins were by small margins, much of the country still idolizes the younger Bush because he made them feel powerful and special. Having members of his administration arrested and brought to trial by a black PotUS already battling accusations of not being a US citizen, a secret Muslim, and a communist socialist probably wouldn't have ended well. Saying that Obama has successfully diverted the attention of the masses from external enemies to endless squabbles over healthcare and gay marriage is not reassuring as the public's attention is notoriously fickle. Even if you accept Obama is not a warmonger this is his final term and god knows who we'll have next.

Let me make crystal clear that I think anyone who starts a war on false pretext and/or forged data should be treated as a criminal. I, personally, don't have a problem with handing such a person over the Hague and I also think it would also help restore US credibility on the international playing field. Unfortunately, I don't see any way that's going to happen in the near future. No one has the means to compel that from the US, and while the US has changed somewhat it has not changed enough to allow that to happen by US volition. I'm sorry about that, but that's the reality of the world on this particular day.

[Thanas]

How often are such slime held accountable without invasion from without?

There are countries where past leaders are regularly tried for much smaller offences. In fact, I would say the whole rest of the civilized world has such mechanisms in place and uses them. Heck, just a week ago Sarkozy was indicted for corruption etc.

It is just the US which has this stupid obsession with not doing anything at all (see Ford). BUT FREEDOM AND JUSTICE.

No one has the means to compel that from the US, and while the US has changed somewhat it has not changed enough to allow that to happen by US volition. I'm sorry about that, but that's the reality of the world on this particular day.

So you completely understand and agree with Stark actually why everybody is thinking the US should stop getting its collective panties in a bunch? Because if you agree that there was no meaningful change in the media apparatus, you are agreeing with Stark.

[Broomstick]

I do occasionally agree with Stark you know. I don't let personal dislike stand in the way of recognizing when someone is right on a subject.

This thread was NOT, however, about the US having its "collective panties in a bunch" but was intended to be an actual discussion of the current situation in North Korea, which means discussing more than the US and its collective reaction to whatever Corpulent Leader is reigning in Pyongyang.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

In that case, the first target of S. Korea is going to be to destroy as many pieces of artillery as they can in as short a time as possible, I'm sure they must have a battle plan for that.

Any plausible plan South Korea might have still involves tons and tons of explosives landing on their own capital. So the deterrent still has an effect, a powerful one.

Makes you wonder how well-defended Seoul actually is, and if push comes to shove, what would the South consider "acceptable losses", and also, capitals aside, how many North Korean cities are within immediate striking distance from the South. It's kinda strange that a lot of capital cities are strategically vulnerable in some way or another, just from glancing at a map.

[madd0ct0r]

trade beats defense in the long term - that's how they became capital cites.

[Prannon]

This thread was NOT, however, about the US having its "collective panties in a bunch" but was intended to be an actual discussion of the current situation in North Korea, which means discussing more than the US and its collective reaction to whatever Corpulent Leader is reigning in Pyongyang.

The current situation in North Korea, and how that affects South Korea, eventually leads to how that affects the United States and what the official response from the US is. That's a valid evolution of the topic. A branch of argument with regards to that is "Americans are 'getting their panties in a bunch' and need to calm the fuck down." So, I can see how that'd be a valid point of discussion given recent history and all that.

The problem comes in where some folks basically use that line of argument to say that Americans are stupid, Iraq War Dubya War Mongering, etc. And when people try to discuss that (aka Simon) they're just getting more of the same thing and the discussion isn't going anywhere. That's lame. :/

I think that if you really want to understand the point that Stark and Hawkeye are making, it's this.

1) North Korea is engaging in brinksmanship. This is dangerous and bad, despite whatever rational or irrational reasons lay behind it. Fine. That's not in argument.
2) South Korea has said that they will defend themselves with strong measures and won't back down from the North if they attack their territory or their citizens. Fine. One can say that they're the closest to the problem and how they choose to respond to it is their right.

-Enter the US-

3) The US is engaging in war games with the South, which it has done for years. Fine. This has always made the North mad, though, so one might logically argue that this just makes things more dangerous in the short term. Ok, not so fine.
4) The US, given the North's virulent rhetoric and actions of late, has been "falling into the trap" and has escalated the level of hardware shown off during the war games; See B-2s, F-22s, Aegis Cruisers, etc. This just makes the North angrier and forces them to escalate in turn. This is predictable behavior. So, again, this makes things ever more dangerous in the short term, and one can logically place the blame for this at the US for falling into the brinksmanship game that the North is playing.
5) The US public at large isn't close to the problem, and for the most part only sees this narrative: "Immature Fatboy Bully in faraway place threatens Our Friends and Peace and Freedom. We stand up to Bully. If Bully wants to start something, we'll meet it and we'll win. Some folks will die, but they're way over there."

It's this final point that Stark and Hawkeye and others not from the States (feel free to correct me) have the most issue with, due to recent history. Ok, fine. So, to me the next logical point in the argument would be to discuss what a better policy would look like.

[Simon_Jester]

Too bad I dont think it was America's fault tensions exist; simply that America can probably reduce them by responding in a different way. Is the goal to reduce tensions and have peace, or to feel good about having a war? That's why media hysteria scares me more than any dictator - the Koreans have their situation that they're dealing with, and on the stage of other countries' media their nations doom might be decided, as has happened before.

Since no one in the US government is even talking publicly about shooting first, I think I can say confidently that that's not going to be a problem.

If Obama were now starting a drumroll of "finally finish off North Korea" you might worry- but he's not going to do that for a lot of reasons.

See the Vasily Arkhipov incident for details on how that can happen. And no, we don't know who would give the order to launch in North Korea. One of the most destabilizing single factors in the whole situation is how opaque the North Korean governmental and military structure is to outsiders.

This is especially an issue for people who want understanding and rapprochement with North Korea.

You can threaten almost anybody and expect the threat to (sort of) work- any rational person on the other end of the phone will react pretty much the same way to "do this and I drop a nuclear bomb down your chimney." That's a matter of survival. But not all rational people react the same way to a gift.

It's much easier to be understanding and peaceful with people who are willing to understand and be understood.

To me the most ironic thing to me is that their are wars going on right now that America totally should intervene in or at least pay more attention to. But they won't because those wars aren't easy targets for station ratings or votes.

Or maybe the current administration actually isn't interested in starting whole new wars, and America as a whole is much more war-weary and less interested in searching for new Hitlers, and both the administration and America have at least temporarily learned a lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan about how hard it is to 'win' a war of occupation and nation-building?

Nah. Couldn't be.

The current situation in North Korea, and how that affects South Korea, eventually leads to how that affects the United States and what the official response from the US is. That's a valid evolution of the topic. A branch of argument with regards to that is "Americans are 'getting their panties in a bunch' and need to calm the fuck down." So, I can see how that'd be a valid point of discussion given recent history and all that.

The problem comes in where some folks basically use that line of argument to say that Americans are stupid, Iraq War Dubya War Mongering, etc. And when people try to discuss that (aka Simon) they're just getting more of the same thing and the discussion isn't going anywhere. That's lame. :/

Thank you, this encouraged me NOT to get totally sidetracked in making this post.

I think that if you really want to understand the point that Stark and Hawkeye are making, it's this.

1) North Korea is engaging in brinksmanship. This is dangerous and bad, despite whatever rational or irrational reasons lay behind it. Fine. That's not in argument.
2) South Korea has said that they will defend themselves with strong measures and won't back down from the North if they attack their territory or their citizens. Fine. One can say that they're the closest to the problem and how they choose to respond to it is their right.

-Enter the US-

3) The US is engaging in war games with the South, which it has done for years. Fine. This has always made the North mad, though, so one might logically argue that this just makes things more dangerous in the short term. Ok, not so fine.
4) The US, given the North's virulent rhetoric and actions of late, has been "falling into the trap" and has escalated the level of hardware shown off during the war games; See B-2s, F-22s, Aegis Cruisers, etc. This just makes the North angrier and forces them to escalate in turn. This is predictable behavior. So, again, this makes things ever more dangerous in the short term, and one can logically place the blame for this at the US for falling into the brinksmanship game that the North is playing.
5) The US public at large isn't close to the problem, and for the most part only sees this narrative: "Immature Fatboy Bully in faraway place threatens Our Friends and Peace and Freedom. We stand up to Bully. If Bully wants to start something, we'll meet it and we'll win. Some folks will die, but they're way over there."

It's this final point that Stark and Hawkeye and others not from the States (feel free to correct me) have the most issue with, due to recent history. Ok, fine. So, to me the next logical point in the argument would be to discuss what a better policy would look like.

Interesting; I wish that they had been as willing to lay this out calmly and clearly as you have.

I would make the following points regarding (3) through (5).

3) The South Koreans consent to these war games. They want very much to have a strong and prepared military, because just as North Korea deters the South by pointing cannons at their capital city, the South deters the North with the basic argument of "if you invaded us your logistics would collapse and you'd lose." But to keep that up they need a well trained military, war games are part of that training, so South Korea holds war games. By your own excellent arguments, South Korea is closest to the threat, and if they think it's reasonable to hold war games to practice fighting at a time like this, I believe them.

4) The US has brought in bigger guns during this conflict. It would be interesting to see what communications have passed between the US, South Korea, and Japan recently about things like the anti-ballistic missile AEGIS ships the US has sent into the area. If I were in the South Korean government, I would be pretty happy to have those around, because anything that could shoot down North Korean nuclear IRBMs would be a HUGE load off my mind. The rest of the stuff not so much.

Here there is a zero-sum game. Making South Korea and Japan feel safer means reducing the killing power of the North Korean deterrent... which in turn makes North Korea mad. So the question becomes, how much are we willing to trade? Does giving South Korea more security balance making North Korea more nervous by weakening their power to threaten the South?

Again, I'd really like to see what discussions of this nature have passed between the governments. I bet the South Korean government has been thinking about this rather hard.

5) The question then is, is there a better policy; is simply ignoring an attempt at brinksmanship a better plan than engaging in one? There's an important concept here of "honoring the threat:" if someone actively threatens you with violence, you would be wise to be prepared for violence. Otherwise you're going to get hit very hard by a surprise attack. Even if the threat of violence is supposedly just part of a diplomatic game, that doesn't mean it's safe or wise to ignore it.

Diplomats are supposed to know this and be restrained in making such violent threats against each other's countries.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

5) The question then is, is there a better policy; is simply ignoring an attempt at brinksmanship a better plan than engaging in one? There's an important concept here of "honoring the threat:" if someone actively threatens you with violence, you would be wise to be prepared for violence. Otherwise you're going to get hit very hard by a surprise attack. Even if the threat of violence is supposedly just part of a diplomatic game, that doesn't mean it's safe or wise to ignore it.

What exactly do you think will happen if the brinksmanship will be ignored? The way you talk and what can be inferred from arguments you're using here indicate you believe it will be "war". But let's look at how that'd really turn out:

North Korea engages in threatening behavior. It is ignored outright by the other side. North Korea then ups the ante, it's still ignored, until finally shells start raining on Seoul and tanks cross the border in a surprise attack that South Korea could've been better prepared for, at which point North Korea's attack is inevitably blunted and turned back and the country itself attacked.

Keeping their guard down in the south changes absolutely nothing about North Korea's security in the event of a war; it just changes how much damage they do. But even if they end up murdering everyone in Seoul because their surprise attack was just that effective, that makes them even less secure, not more. Unless you honestly think the North Koreans are more worried about how much damage they can do ahead of their own interests, preemptive war on their part for no reason but to invade isn't something they're going to do.

Now, you could instead worry that North Korea if left unchallenged would continue to do damaging but not war-causing events and this will end up killing a lot of people over a drawn out period; that's something I can see debating. But "we must keep EVER VIGILANT or else they're going to attack us simply because there's a chance at a first strike that will cause a lot of civil damage" doesn't seem like an argument you should be cribbing from.

[Stark]

Sigh. If people can't keep the main object in view (ie, best solution for Koreans) then it's a sad tragedy. That nobody even blinks when told the people of South Korea aren't as worried as they are is doubly so. That paying off NK into the mid term when the efforts towards detente show fruit might be more important to Koreans than hundreds of thousands dead and nation-wide chaos is too much of an affront to pride.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well the Americans are deploying anti-missile defences to Guam, even though no-one seriously believes NK can actually launch a nuclear missile. Does NK not realise that nuclear war is even worse than conventional warfare?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Well the Americans are deploying anti-missile defences to Guam, even though no-one seriously believes NK can actually launch a nuclear missile. Does NK not realise that nuclear war is even worse than conventional warfare?

As far as I can tell, that is, in fact, the entire point. With a nuclear arsenal, they can keep the same deterrence and ability to threaten other states without the cost of maintaining thousands of guns in bunkers aimed at a metropolis and several thousand tanks at the ready.

The point isn't to actually attack with the weapons in some crazed blaze of glory. They know that the best way to ensure they aren't invaded is to have millions of hostages, and if they can make it so that even one missile is a threat and you can't just move the population outside artillery range, then their deterrence is all the safer from erosion, in addition to requiring less resources.

Are you actually trying to engage with the subject or just make fun of the silly bad guys?

[The Xeelee]

Those whacky Koreans.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well the Americans are deploying anti-missile defences to Guam, even though no-one seriously believes NK can actually launch a nuclear missile. Does NK not realise that nuclear war is even worse than conventional warfare?

As far as I can tell, that is, in fact, the entire point. With a nuclear arsenal, they can keep the same deterrence and ability to threaten other states without the cost of maintaining thousands of guns in bunkers aimed at a metropolis and several thousand tanks at the ready.

The point isn't to actually attack with the weapons in some crazed blaze of glory. They know that the best way to ensure they aren't invaded is to have millions of hostages, and if they can make it so that even one missile is a threat and you can't just move the population outside artillery range, then their deterrence is all the safer from erosion, in addition to requiring less resources.

Are you actually trying to engage with the subject or just make fun of the silly bad guys?

The thinking is not that they currently have the ability to fire a nuclear missile but choose not to use it, but that it's currently beyond their capabilities.

[Simon_Jester]

As far as I can tell, that is, in fact, the entire point. With a nuclear arsenal, they can keep the same deterrence and ability to threaten other states without the cost of maintaining thousands of guns in bunkers aimed at a metropolis and several thousand tanks at the ready.

The point isn't to actually attack with the weapons in some crazed blaze of glory. They know that the best way to ensure they aren't invaded is to have millions of hostages, and if they can make it so that even one missile is a threat and you can't just move the population outside artillery range, then their deterrence is all the safer from erosion, in addition to requiring less resources.

That's the reasoning- the problem is that North Korea is so uncommunicative that for all our armchair guesses about what their government is probably thinking, we can't be sure. That makes anyone who has to take real responsibility for what happens in case of a war nervous.

Well the Americans are deploying anti-missile defences to Guam, even though no-one seriously believes NK can actually launch a nuclear missile. Does NK not realise that nuclear war is even worse than conventional warfare?

...What are you lolling about? North Korea already has launched missiles in tests, missiles which are perfectly capable of being loaded with nuclear warheads. It's unlikely that any North Korean missile could hit the continental US, but Honolulu deserves some protection from getting blown off the map too.

5) The question then is, is there a better policy; is simply ignoring an attempt at brinksmanship a better plan than engaging in one? There's an important concept here of "honoring the threat:" if someone actively threatens you with violence, you would be wise to be prepared for violence. Otherwise you're going to get hit very hard by a surprise attack. Even if the threat of violence is supposedly just part of a diplomatic game, that doesn't mean it's safe or wise to ignore it.

What exactly do you think will happen if the brinksmanship will be ignored? The way you talk and what can be inferred from arguments you're using here indicate you believe it will be "war".

...Uh, no?

I figure, 90-99% chance, maybe even with some extra nines, that this is just North Korea strutting up and down and beating their chest and roaring like a gorilla to show off how badass they are. BUT- North Korea has a new leader, a new nuclear arsenal. The country has changed quite a bit in the past five years. How sure are we that this doesn't change anything, that North Korea is going to behave exactly the same way they always have, and that different leadership or simple bad luck won't result in an unwanted war?

I'm unsure. At a time like this, the South Koreans have every reason to shore up their defenses, in hopes that this will save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in the event that something goes wrong.

It's a very simple, basic idea: have a backup plan, just in case the world doesn't work exactly the way you thought it did.

But let's look at how that'd really turn out:

North Korea engages in threatening behavior. It is ignored outright by the other side. North Korea then ups the ante, it's still ignored, until finally shells start raining on Seoul and tanks cross the border in a surprise attack that South Korea could've been better prepared for, at which point North Korea's attack is inevitably blunted and turned back and the country itself attacked.

Keeping their guard down in the south changes absolutely nothing about North Korea's security in the event of a war; it just changes how much damage they do. But even if they end up murdering everyone in Seoul because their surprise attack was just that effective, that makes them even less secure, not more. Unless you honestly think the North Koreans are more worried about how much damage they can do ahead of their own interests, preemptive war on their part for no reason but to invade isn't something they're going to do.

Almost certainly not. But consider some examples from history.

1941 Japan thought it was a brilliant idea to attack a combination of countries with something like ten times their industrial output, because they figured nobody had the balls to do anything about it if they launched a big smash-and-grab.

1914 France- not a country we normally think of as crazy!- came up with a strategy for opening World War One that nearly wrecked the nation and got them conquered: blind, all-out attack and aggression at every level. In practice that meant that most of their best troops swarmed into the teeth of German machine guns wearing brightly colored uniforms, while the Germans calmly waited out the attack and outflanked pretty much the whole French military.

1864 Paraguay- Francisco Lopez seemed like a sane enough Latin American caudillo, but somehow he managed to get his country into a massive three-sided war and got nutcrackered between Brazil and Argentina, resulting in a massively bloody conflict that killed off something like 60 to 90% of the country's population. Was this all his fault? No, but it happened anyway, and neither Brazil nor Argentina had originally desired war with Paraguay, and certainly not the near destruction of the country that resulted.


So it's not like there aren't precedents. Before I can do diplomacy, I have to understand that not everyone thinks like me. Most people do things for reasons that make a lot of sense. Everyone does things for reasons that make sense to themselves. But not everyone acts in exactly the ways I'd predict based on some kind of perfect simulation of their attitude and opinions. Pride or fear or an asymmetric perception of the world may make them think they must do exactly what I think they'd be out of their mind to do.

So it's basic common sense- you don't just stop worrying about what a rival could do to your people just because you "don't think" they'll decide to hit you over the head. Countries have charged into unwinnable wars before, and probably will do so again. It's very unlikely, but it's worth having at least some preparation for in case the very unlikely disaster takes place.

Sigh. If people can't keep the main object in view (ie, best solution for Koreans) then it's a sad tragedy. That nobody even blinks when told the people of South Korea aren't as worried as they are is doubly so.

I don't know who the hell you're talking about.

South Korean citizens probably don't think too much about the threat of North Korean attack. Fine. The average American citizen of 1975 didn't think too much about the possibility of nuclear war with the USSR. But if you'd asked that same average American citizen "since you don't worry about the Russians often, does that mean we should get rid of all those missiles pointed at Moscow," that American would have looked at you like you came from the planet Idiot.

I imagine that a Russian would have looked the same way if you asked him the equivalent question. He certainly should have, because it's a stupid question pointed either way.

The South Korean government is responsible for both the likely case (North Korea as posturing dictatorship) and the unlikely case (North Korea planning an attack). Either way, that means doing what will secure "the best solution for Koreans," which means being prepared for both peace and war. Personally I'm happy that South Korea tries to be ready for either event- both by taking steps to secure peace, and by having the firepower to limit the effect of a war on their people.

Right now, North Korea does not seem to be very interested in South Korea's steps to secure peace. That's a shame; hopefully the North will change their minds.

That paying off NK into the mid term when the efforts towards detente show fruit might be more important to Koreans than hundreds of thousands dead and nation-wide chaos is too much of an affront to pride.

I'm fine with paying off North Korea if the North Koreans will accept the payoff, which at the moment is not obvious: if they want something, they're too busy not listening to anyone to ask for it right now.

[The Xeelee]

All companies must pull out of Kaesong by April 10th.

[Stark]

If someone doesn't even mention your name it's a bit silly to get angry because you think they're talking to you. :lol

Unintentional hilarity of American hypocrisy regarding threatening mass deaths is just an added bonus.

[ChaserGrey]

Now, you could instead worry that North Korea if left unchallenged would continue to do damaging but not war-causing events and this will end up killing a lot of people over a drawn out period; that's something I can see debating. But "we must keep EVER VIGILANT or else they're going to attack us simply because there's a chance at a first strike that will cause a lot of civil damage" doesn't seem like an argument you should be cribbing from.

I would worry about what you stated, and I'd also worry that an atmosphere of perpetual crisis makes a conventional war more likely even if neither side wants one, for reasons I discussed upthread. Giving in to North Korean demands defuses the immediate crisis, but it also gives them an incentive to try the same thing later when they want something else. Their record with nuclear facility work and missile tests during the Clinton and early Bush years is a demonstration of this.

Sigh. If people can't keep the main object in view (ie, best solution for Koreans) then it's a sad tragedy. That nobody even blinks when told the people of South Korea aren't as worried as they are is doubly so. That paying off NK into the mid term when the efforts towards detente show fruit might be more important to Koreans than hundreds of thousands dead and nation-wide chaos is too much of an affront to pride.

South Koreans do seem to have become inured to crisis with the North. That doesn't mean it's not worth being concerned about on a strategic level. You never know which one is going to be the Franz Ferdinand equivalent, and I'd really like to see things defused before they get to that level.

I do think we agree on two big points: 1) Most media coverage I've seen has been absolutely awful scare-mongering and 2) the decision about what to do here needs to be made by the South Koreans. They're the ones who are most on the line here, and I don't think it's for anyone else, anywhere, to tell them what's starting a war over. I was kinda surprised they accepted the shelling in 2010 but my attitude was, if they're not willing to go to war over it, nobody else should either.

The thinking is not that they currently have the ability to fire a nuclear missile but choose not to use it, but that it's currently beyond their capabilities.

Um. No. The North has missiles that are quite capable of reaching anywhere in South Korea, Japan, parts of China, etc. What they most likely can't do yet is hit the United States, and probably won't be able to for another 5-10 years. They're also thought to have 6-10 nuclear warheads already. Whether they're small enough to fit on a missile is anybody's guess though.

Frankly, this is the thing that disgusts me most about American media coverage. "The North Koreans don't have nuclear missiles!" Well, no, they don't have ones that can hit *us*. Big difference.

I'm fine with paying off North Korea if the North Koreans will accept the payoff, which at the moment is not obvious: if they want something, they're too busy not listening to anyone to ask for it right now.

Based on what started this latest round of posturing I think what they want is for the global community to accept North Korea as a nuclear power, with all that implies. The problem is that the US, the EU, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and pretty much everybody have said they won't accept that to one degree or another, and backing down under bluster and threats is not a good way to kick off a new era in diplomacy.

Personally, I think we ultimately may not have a choice. The North Koreans have built bombs, and I think they're going to keep doing it under pretty much any conditions except all-out war. The idea that embargoing Kim's cognac will convince him to give up on the whole thing seems a bit far-fetched to me. So that leaves accepting the North Korean nuclear arsenal, getting them to voluntarily give it up (yeah, right) or taking it away by force. And for a bunch of reasons discussed on the thread already, I just don't think the third option is going to be on the table. In an ideal world there could be negotiations about what concessions the international community might get from the North Koreans in return for recognizing their nuclear program, but I don't see that happening anytime soon considering the official response seems to be "Silence! I kill you!"

Edit:

All companies must pull out of Kaesong by April 10th.

Oh, endless fucking joy. That's it, I'm getting a drink and going to bed.

[Stark]

It's a shame they've been given such good reasons to step up their brinksmanship too. I'm very curious to know how SK and their government responds to this surf rather than the very America chestbeating focused stuff. I can't even listen to 'evil rogue state' after the last decade, and that shit doesn't actually make war less likely.

[chitoryu12]

In that case, the first target of S. Korea is going to be to destroy as many pieces of artillery as they can in as short a time as possible, I'm sure they must have a battle plan for that.

Any plausible plan South Korea might have still involves tons and tons of explosives landing on their own capital. So the deterrent still has an effect, a powerful one.

Makes you wonder how well-defended Seoul actually is, and if push comes to shove, what would the South consider "acceptable losses", and also, capitals aside, how many North Korean cities are within immediate striking distance from the South. It's kinda strange that a lot of capital cities are strategically vulnerable in some way or another, just from glancing at a map.

Well, defending against artillery is a lot harder than defending against missiles or aircraft. Artillery shells are very small and very fast, literally seconds from the time someone on the north side of the border pulls the lanyard till it hits. I don't think South Korea has Israel's Iron Dome, which means that the first barrage is really not something that can be avoided. They're likely already dialed in for their targets, so early warning is dependent on seeing the guns preparing (assuming the DPRK has them do it out in the open, rather than trying to be stealthy in their arming) and getting the word out. And I seriously doubt that even if they spot the guns being readied for firing that they'll managed to destroy all or even any of them before any are fired. As soon as those triggers get squeezed, Seoul and outlying areas are being hit by artillery. Potentially hundreds or thousands of shells simultaneously.

The best response to artillery is obviously to destroy the guns, but the only way to make an immediate response is to have your own guns and missiles already pre-aimed at the positions or planes in the air and ready to break off for a surgical strike as soon as someone sees the flash. One of their 170mm guns can take up to 5 minutes to reload. Seoul is 31 miles from the border, which means that it's outlying areas may be in range of rocket-assisted projectiles from a 130mm gun that can fire 6 to 8 rounds per minute (or one shot every 10 seconds). The BM-21s can manage 2 shots per second and carry 40 rockets, meaning that it'll only take them 20 seconds for 18 launchers to dump as much as 14,400 pounds of ordnance on whatever civilian target they desire.

So even if all of the guns actually aimed for Seoul proper are the heaviest artillery pieces, you've got 5 minutes at most to destroy or force all of the guns into hiding to prevent them from firing another volley. And keep in mind that there are civilian targets within 15 miles or less from the border, which can be hit by those rapid fire pieces. It's no stretch to imagine hundreds or thousands of shells and rockets flying over the border onto residential areas. And a preemptive strike is out of the question if these guns are ready to go, because you'd need to be able to near-simultaneously destroy or otherwise silence every gun; as soon as an attack is made on North Korea, someone's going to start shooting.

There is quite literally nothing that can be done to save everyone in South Korea should a war begin. Hundreds or even thousands of deaths is a possibility, and it'll be the opening move.