Uh oh
 

Ohh shiitttt....

Bet it'll turn into nothing, just another interesting tidbit you'll read on wikipedia in the end.

Tyrants push it to see what they can away with as nobody has the balls to stand up to them, remmeber they already sank a korean naval vessel and got away with that.

You need to seriously improve on your spelling.

Just woke up and speed typed that out.

Skirmishes like this are pretty much routine now. The media seems to get excited every time it happens, and then it eventually plays itself out.

When it happens, it's usually a sign that something's going in within the DPRK regime. In this case, that "something" is the leadership transition.

I say take down that regime once and for all, of course that will never happen and those tyrants will stay in power.....

Would be nice, but it's not possible (or at least, the consequences would be unacceptable).

A country with a human rights record that bad and history of agression? It would be easy to gain allies, a joint American/South korean/ whoever has the balls to help us force sounds like it could be done and public opinion on our side.

(1.) China, and possibly Russia, would be thrown into a panic and immediately mobilize against us. North Korea is their ally, even though they both hate the Kims and hate having to prop them up. It would be the Korean War all over again, except that China has far more resources and better technology relative to us than they did in the 1950s. And given the current situation of NATO and SEATO, nobody would have the balls to help us.

(2.) The North Koreans have literally thousands of artillery tubes trained on Seoul. They'd shell it to rubble even at the slightest hint that U.S./ROK forces had started moving across the DMZ. This, more than a nuclear capability, is the reason why the U.S. can never invade the North.

(3.) The DPRK has an extremely sneaky intelligence force that could easily get into place to carry out attacks of sabotage, possibly with chemical or biological weapons. This could be done against the South Koreans, but possibly against us as well. We also don't know what types of terrorist assets they have elsewhere in the world to use against us or our allies.

All this because of a skirmish that kills two South Korean soldier? No thank you.

Not due to two deaths, due to the millions over time of their own people the regime has murdered. Due to the millions who will continue to die. And Russia and China aren't going to come militarily to the aid of North Korea, sure they'll raise a fuss but:

A. Russia and China hate each other, they'd never work together.

B. Being an ally of North Korea doesn't have enough benefit to risk war.

We need to just make it clear to North Korea that if they keep trying to start a war, there will no longer be a North Korea, only an unihabitable nuclear wasteland

Russia and China do not "hate" each other, they distrust each other and remain rivals (not enemies). But that doesn't change the fact that they do have some mutual strategic interests, and North Korea happens to be one of those. China and Russia have kept the Kims in power on the Korean peninsula because they regard the DPRK as a buffer against U.S. and Japanese military power in the region. As long as the Kims are militarily weak but unpredictable and bellicose, it keeps the U.S. from establishing complete dominance in the region.

Another problem (for China) is that if the regime collapsed, millions of North Koreans would flood China, which would have a serious economic impact and also possibly lead to civil war in the provinces which the refugees entered (Chinese in the border provinces hate Koreans already). The Chinese have enough issues with internal stability as-is.

So no, North Korea is extremely important to China and Russia, and they will go to war to keep the U.S. and South Korea out of it.

They're not trying to start a war. As I've said, when this stuff happens, it's a result of internal tensions with the regime.

Gotta try and start an internal revolution there. Too bad they grow up brainwashed.

I'm not even sure it would matter much if they didn't. Syngman Rhee (the dictator who we kept in power through the 1950s and 60s) was almost as crazy as Kim il-Sung, and he also had populist appeal. I also know a couple of exchange students from Seoul, and they say that while most of the cosmopolitan, urbanized population is pro-democracy, the rural, less educated Koreans tend to be crazy nationalist ultra-religious zealots. Exactly the kinds of people, in other words, who tend to support dictators. Even in the 1950s and 60s, the DPRK regime had a lot of support in South Korea, and their intelligence services tried to start a Viet Cong-style rebellion during the 1970s after Rhee stepped down and his successors didn't have his appeal.

What's even more ridiculous is that in spite of how long we've protected South Korea from the North, and how much money we've given them, a majority of the South Korean population vehemently hates us. If you think Europeans are ungrateful anti-American morons, you should hear what I've heard about Koreans' attitudes towards Americans.

The impression I get is that Korean culture is just naturally crazy, authoritarian, and anti-Western. And the Koreans I've talked to pretty much agree with me.

I laugh at the news when I see "South threatens retaliation if another attack happens."

This was said when they sank a destroyer with a torpedo attack, nothing happened. The south should bomb a military post in the north.

Which would have the same effect as declaring war, or escalate the situation. It would be one thing to do that if the South were sure that the North was serious about war. But at this point, the ROK's leaders understand (as do American leaders) that DPRK provocations are to be treated more like natural disasters than serious threats to national security. They're basically just something that the Kims have to do in order to politically out-maneuver their rivals to-be within the Korean People's Army.

Without sounding insensitive (because I hate dictators and human rights violators as much as anyone else), I lost a lot of sympathy for the North Koreans after I learned more about the internal politics of the DPRK. One of the things that Westerners fail to understand is that political repression usually isn't evil totalitarian regimes repressing democratic opposition. More often than not, it's totalitarians repressing other totalitarians who would be just as bad, or worse, if in power. That's how things were in Iraq under Saddam, and from what I understand, that's how things are in North Korea. In situations like that, it's a lot harder for me to feel moved.

There wasn't even much of a democratic movement in South Korea itself until around the 1970s. Part of the reason we kept Rhee and his successors in power for so long was that we knew most of the Korean population hated us and wanted an anti-American regime in power. Plenty of them also supported Kim il-Sung. We only started pressuring the South Korean regime to hold free elections after CIA analysts concluded that the democratic, Western-neutral opposition had a good chance at winning. Before that, most South Koreans probably would have been fine with an undemocratic, America-hating dictator in power.

If I was in power in a country attacks against my people would not go unpunished, all tyrants do stuff like this because they know theres no consequences, they need to be shown there is. Its stupid one side can launch attacks but the other cant since it will start a war.

I'm obviously not getting through to you. Yes, it may be bad to let the North Koreans get away with this, but the consequences would be worse, and unless the attack signifies an existential threat to South Korea's security, it's not worth the risk. There's being assertive, and there's being dumb. What you are suggesting is just plain dumb.

Fortunately, this is why people like me are in charge of foreign policy in the U.S. :D

I wish regimes like this were stopped before they became powerful.

And retaliating may be more disastrous in the short run but allowing opressive regimes to continue over time will be more disastrous.

We already tried and failed. Sometimes, it's just not possible.

It's not just disastrous in the short run; it's disastrous in the long run, too. We're already over-stretched by being in Iraq and Afghanistan. So much so that we couldn't help Georgia when Russia provoked them to war in 2008. Getting ourselves into a war with the DPRK, China, and possibly Russia would be strategic suicide. We aren't that strong, and our allies are not reliable enough. Not to mention that, in case you've forgotten, we're also economically interdependent with China.

Fortunately, the good news is that while China likes keeping the DPRK on its leash, they get angry at the Kims for doing stuff like this. I can almost assure you that regardless of what repercussions the Kims face from us, they will face worse from the Chinese. Since they're dependent upon the PRC, the Chinese have far more leverage against them than we do.

And you're still being short-sighted about regimes. I've already explained to you that there is no democratic opposition in North Korea. If the Kims went away tomorrow, the next regime in power could be even worse. Have you thought about that?

You seem to assume North Korea would stay a separate state, I think the south would annex and reunify the korean peninsula.

To be honest, if China would tighten it's leash on North Korea, North Korea wouldn't be such of a problem

China should just annex north korea, the chinese abuse human rights but not nearly as much, its like the lesser of two evils, besides, the commies killing each other off in a war is win win for us.

You're again forgetting the big problem: Economic integration. When you annex an extremely poor country with 25 million people who have been living in ignorance for generations, it's a huge economic drain. South Korea's economy isn't strong enough to withstand a sudden influx of millions of unskilled, illiterate peasants. It would much tougher than Germany being re-unified, for example (and East Germany, while stunted by communism, wasn't nearly as poor as North Korea is).

I told you earlier than Chinese and Koreans hate each other. There would be civil war if that happened. And it would be a drain on China's own economy to boot. It wouldn't be a win-win for us, either, because China holds most of our debt.

Also, I think I've said this already, but the PRC and DPRK regimes are hardly communist at this point (fascist/ultra-nationalist would be a better description).

The Chinese do try to keep the North Koreans from getting too crazy (because they, more than anyone else, would stand to lose big from a war in the region), but it's not easy for them.

I think the economic integration issue is the elephant in the room. None of the news stories mention this. Basically, South Korea has nothing to gain in a war, even if they do win. (And I'm guessing they would. I don't see Red China risking their relationship with the US to prop up someone as unreliable as Kim Jong Il or his successors.) According to one report, in the twenty years since German reunification, the German government spent $1.9 TRILLION trying to bring the east up to par, and they're still not even yet. I can't even imagine how much it would cost to reintegrate North Korea. Sadly, the status quo, minus the random attacks, appears to be the best solution for all.

In spite of the U.S.-PRC economic relationship, the Chinese would not be able to tolerate an ROK and/or U.S. war with the DPRK. They also understand, however, that this is extremely unlikely to happen because it would be strategic suicide for all parties involved.

Exactly. Thank you for backing me up on this part.

It is a shitty situation, but in foreign affairs, you have to play the hand you're dealt.

But that's the thing: how many times are we going to allow them to poke us with a stick before we (as in the west) retaliate? I don't think anyone wanted to invade Afghanistan before fall 2001 either, but we felt we had no choice. How far does this go? How much does South Korea tolerate? (And after a sunken warship AND shelling, the answer so far is: A LOT.) Will they be dumb enough to go after us ? (as in the US.) And what happens if they do?

Seriously, I don't know how much we can tolerate. The only thing I can say is that we know what the DPRK wants and why they do what they do (two words: regime survival). As long as we know this is the case, it makes no sense for us to allow (or participate in) an all-out war, given the consequences to us. That gives the Kims some leverage against us, but it also won't necessarily allow them to do what they really seek to do, which is to get concessions from us.

Afghanistan is not North Korea. The consequences of invading Afghanistan were not nearly as serious as going to war with North Korea would be.

I say we just send Michael Jordon over to North Korea to play Kim Jong Il in a game of basketball. Il is obsessed with basketball (not even kidding), and has wanted to play Michael Jordon for some time. I think if we sent Jordon over, the chance of him beating that midget at B-Ball would be high, and then Jordon could overthrow Il as leader. And then everyone wins. Except Kim Jong Il. But fuck that guy.

Certainly not as bad, but given their successes against superpowers, particularly against the Soviet Union, definitely in the Top Ten, if not Top Five of "Countries we'd prefer not to invade."

A midget who had a stroke versus a has-been NBA player? Hmmm, that might be a little more evenly matched than you'd think. :D

Also, Kim Jong-Un is about to succeed Jong-Il. That's what all this commotion is about.

Is there a specific reason for this or do things just get all whacked out of control when power changes hands?

In a regime like that of the DPRK, he who appears most nationalistic and willing to slap the Yankees in the face is seen as most fit to lead. So it's all about who can out-posture the opposition. Not appearing sufficiently militant can lead to political weakness.

I think if we can sell China on the idea of installing a Chinese-style communist regime in place of Kim and sons, we can make some progress. Reunification makes sense culturally and emotionally, but is a nightmare politically and economically, and thus is not really a realistic option. The Chinese get to keep their buffer, one that they have better control of, that buffer is more stable and progressive, with an improved standard of living for their people, and no one is committing random acts of war against South Korea. Basically, the only people who wouldn't benefit would be Kim and sons. Once China signs off on it, it's on!

That's the closest thing to a possibility I could imagine. But it's still highly unlikely. Moreover, if North Korea even suspected China was willing to do that, there's no telling what they would do in retaliation. It's not a coincidence that most of the DPRK's ballistic missile bases were built as far to the east of the peninsula (read: as far from the PRC) as possible.

I think if the Red Chinese drop enough subtle hints to the NK military that all they want is the Kims out of the way, a settlement can be reached. Once they lose China, who else will they have to turn to? If those generals are even a bit pragmatic, they have to know they're screwed without China's backing.

And if NK missiles can reach China, you can be sure Chinese missiles can reach NK.

That's good point. But I would expect that at this point, the Chinese have already considered this. If they really had a failsafe way to separate the Kims from the generals, I imagine they would have done it by now.

And ultimately, the Koreans are so xenophobic that any leader who is seen as a puppet of an outside power - even the Chinese - would never survive.

No doubt. But putting it on the Sea of Japan also makes it both more vulnerable and more provocative to the Japanese. That's as much an indication of a lack of faith in China as an ally as it is an indication of how much they fear/hate Japan.

A) How would they know? All media is controlled by the government. B) As if the people could actually do anything about it even if they did know.


I wouldn't take anything way from the hatred/paranoia of Japan. Not only is there the historical animosity (Probably the only thing you can get North and South Koreans, and the PRC and the ROC to agree on,) but Japan is also home to much of the American military.

It's not the people who matter; it's factions within the regime. My understanding is that many of the KPA's generals are more nationalistic and bellicose than the Kims themselves. It really might not even be possible for China to find anyone within the regime who is more friendly to them than the Kims. If they did install a puppet leader, said leader would probably have a great deal of difficulty winning over the loyalty of the KPA (more of a challenge than Kim Jong-Un faces now), and might face rapid marginalization. In the DPRK, a lack of military support means political weakness.

Yes, true. But think about it this way: If you trusted China enough as an ally, wouldn't it make the most sense to build a missile base as close to China (and within range of potential defending Chinese troops) as possible? Obviously, it's not going to make a difference in practical terms (missile ranges are far enough that the base is vulnerable to attack either way). But that doesn't mean it lacks symbolic importance, which has its own value (think about how the Russians get upset with us for installing completely useless missile defenses in Poland).