North and South Korea's artillery exchange

[Lord Justin]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Locator_map_of_Korea.svg/250px-Locator_map_of_Korea.svg.png

By now we probably all know what happened on Tuesday; the North Korean military fired around 200 artillery rounds at Yeonpyeong Island off the coast of South Korea, killing several and wounding several more. Evidently it was a response to test shots fired by South Korean artillery into the contested waters of the Yellow Sea during some military exercises. South Korea responded with an artillery barrage of its own; we're not sure if they hit anything.

Here is an article that sums up the situation as of today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40329269/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

The Korean peninsula is still technically in a state of war and there have been exchanges like this with similar casualties for decades. This one stands out because of the apparent targeting of civilians with heavy weapons, but it's not unprecedented.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Korean_dmz_map.png

Here's a list of the skirmishes and incidents that have been going on and off for a few decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea#Infiltrations.2C_incursions_and_ incidents

I'm sure most of us will recall the SK ship that was sunk earlier this year, killing 46 sailors, believed to be caused by a NK torpedo. That was one of the worst attacks in recent years.

So how should the US (a close ally of SK) and China (allied to NK) deal with this? What's going to come of this exchange, or will it be like its predecessors, controversial yet ultimately dead-ended? Why is NK provoking anger with these attacks and how should SK respond? How will NK manage the shift of power from King Jung-il to his much less popular heir Kim Jong-un, and what will the new regime mean for the ongoing conflict?

Here, read up on North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea) while you're at it, it's got a fascinating history.

[DavidUpton]

The problem is, and bear in mind that do not at all normally advocate war or aggressive actions, but North Korea is never going to listen to anyone unless something more 'tough' is done. If these sort of attacks are allowed to go unpunished, then they will continue to be carried out much in the same way a child will continue being naughty if it is not disciplined.

[Onearmy]

Yeah, earlier I wasn't suggesting that we declare all out war and bomb them into oblivion, that accomplishes nothing except leave us a lot of dead civilians. But when North Korea pokes us, we need to push them back. And if they push back, we shove.

[css2d]

I think things will change as soon as Chinas costs of producing will rise and they want to outsource their Productionlines to a country with cheaper wages (this will probably take at least another 10-15 Years)

[Lord Justin]

I think things will change as soon as Chinas costs of producing will rise and they want to outsource their Productionlines to a country with cheaper wages (this will probably take at least another 10-15 Years)

That certainly may help to ease the everyday woes of NK civilians. However, by that time NK will have a new glorious leader and no one is sure how much Kim Jong-un's policies and decisions will differ from Kim Jong-il's. Perhaps China will begin outsourcing jobs to NK, but how will the government deal with this newfound income? I doubt they would change their policies significantly simply because of some imported jobs, but it might trigger some changes (hopefully some progressivism).


Yeah, earlier I wasn't suggesting that we declare all out war and bomb them into oblivion, that accomplishes nothing except leave us a lot of dead civilians. But when North Korea pokes us, we need to push them back. And if they push back, we shove.

I still think that's an irresponsible view. You wouldn't try to convince an angry bear to calm down by hitting it with a ruler. NK's actions seem to be extremely reckless and aimed at provocation, so I don't see how "shoving" back would be a prudent response. It would probably escalate into open war, and personally I don't want to sit down to watch the news and see "900,000 South Korean civilians killed in Seoul shelling."

[DavidUpton]

I still think that's an irresponsible view. You wouldn't try to convince an angry bear to calm down by hitting it with a ruler. NK's actions seem to be extremely reckless and aimed at provocation, so I don't see how "shoving" back would be a prudent response. It would probably escalate into open war, and personally I don't want to sit down to watch the news and see "900,000 South Korean civilians killed in Seoul shelling."

So you suggest that we nicely ask the bear that is chewing on South Korea's arm to stop? I don't think that will work.

[css2d]

That certainly may help to ease the everyday woes of NK civilians. However, by that time NK will have a new glorious leader and no one is sure how much Kim Jong-un's policies and decisions will differ from Kim Jong-il's. Perhaps China will begin outsourcing jobs to NK, but how will the government deal with this newfound income? I doubt they would change their policies significantly simply because of some imported jobs, but it might trigger some changes (hopefully some progressivism).

Like China didn't change when capitalism kicked the door in? :)

[Lord Justin]

So you suggest that we nicely ask the bear that is chewing on South Korea's arm to stop? I don't think that will work.

No, I didn't suggest doing anything, but I am sure that "shoving back" is not the most prudent response when an irresponsible, angry nation with nukes and a martyrdom complex prods at their enemies.


Like China didn't change when capitalism kicked the door in? :)

But you didn't suggest NK would change into a capitalist system if China outsourced labor there. And I doubt it would. Importing some labor is not the same as a fundamental change of the economic system. I'm sure such a drastic overhaul (capitalism) could do good to open NK to the world and decrease the repressive behavior of the government, but it would take a lot to trigger that change in a country so intensely set in its ways.

In other words, the introduction of Chinese jobs might help their economy, but that alone won't bring NK to the modern era or democratize it. It would take cosmopolitan, modern leaders to do that, and if Kim Jong-un is anything like his father, those leaders won't exist anytime soon.

That's even assuming NK will take Chinese jobs. They take humanitarian aid, but the Juche philosophy doesn't leave much room for accepting economic help from foreigners. I think Chinese labor is much more likely to be outsourced to India.

[css2d]

Well I meant it more in the sense that China would move their factories there, not just transferring labor (as those would probably try to flee as soon as they have a chance).

And it is obvious that that alone wouldn't change anything, but outside influence would increase the contact with other ideas/ideologies, which could in turn could influence (in the long term) the change of the country.

And I doubt Juche could stand up against a blockade by cheap labor wanting China.

Happy Thanksgiving :)

[Lord Justin]

I know you were talking about China setting up factories there, not actually moving workers into China; NK would never allow that, under the current system or anything like it. I'm sure such a circumstance would allow new ideas to seep into the Korean workforce, but that's just the problem: I doubt NK would ever allow that to happen, for that very reason. They don't want their citizens doing work for foreigners because that would expose them to foreign ideas.

Juche would not stand well to an introduction of foreign jobs, but my argument is that foreign jobs are highly unlikely to be introduced, due to Juche. Unless there's some radical (unprecedented in 60 years) subversion of traditional NK ideology with the power shift to Kim's successor, the government is almost guaranteed not to open its workforce up to foreign jobs, even if the work was kept in-country.

You have to remember how profoundly deep the traditions of self-reliance, xenophobia, and worshiping of the Kims are engrained in NK culture. Many citizens can't possibly imagine a life without their dear leader in total control and many believe all foreigners are out to destroy their essential way of life.

And thank you, happy thanksgiving to you too :) (even if you don't celebrate this best holiday of the year)

[DavidUpton]

No, I didn't suggest doing anything, but I am sure that "shoving back" is not the most prudent response when an irresponsible, angry nation with nukes and a martyrdom complex prods at their enemies.


It's essentially what you are saying. All we doing at the moment is saying to North Korea "stop that, you're being naughty" and they are taking no notice. I guarantee that these sort of attacks will go on and on as long as nothing is done to stop them.

[Onearmy]

Personally, as long as the Kim family is in control, the only way to stop them from being like this is to remove them. Either by a coup, or, well, war. Because lets face it: This is sort of like what happened right before World War II. Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland and France and Great Britain disliked it but didn't do anything. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. Same thing, they did nothing. They annexed Austria, and still France and Britain stood by idly and watched. Only when Germany invaded Poland is when Great Britain and France stepped in, but by then it was a little too late.

Perhaps by increasing US military presence in South Korea, that might deter North Korea from continuing to "poke" us.

[Lord Justin]

It's essentially what you are saying. All we doing at the moment is saying to North Korea "stop that, you're being naughty" and they are taking no notice. I guarantee that these sort of attacks will go on and on as long as nothing is done to stop them.

But it's literally not what I am saying. I didn't put forth any suggestion for how to respond to the attacks, because I don't know what would work. Clearly trying to talk them down hasn't worked, and SK responding with military threats hasn't worked. I have no doubt that a full-scale war would work, insofar as it would certainly stop these intermittent, unprovoked attacks, but I don't think a war is the right way to go, because a whole lot of people would die in the crossfire. Including nice SK civilians and many US troops.


Personally, as long as the Kim family is in control, the only way to stop them from being like this is to remove them. Either by a coup, or, well, war. Because lets face it: This is sort of like what happened right before World War II. Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland and France and Great Britain disliked it but didn't do anything. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. Same thing, they did nothing. They annexed Austria, and still France and Britain stood by idly and watched. Only when Germany invaded Poland is when Great Britain and France stepped in, but by then it was a little too late.

Perhaps by increasing US military presence in South Korea, that might deter North Korea from continuing to "poke" us.

You might be right about war or a coup being the only war to remove the Kims. The way they have a stranglehold on the country is like nothing else in recent history. I really can't think of any way of bringing the country into the modern era without removing the Kim dynasty; the ultimate question might be: how to do it?

I don't think an increased US military presence would be much of a deterrence. I mean, there're already about 10,000 US troops there, and that doesn't seem to bother NK (see: Axe Murder Incident). They already know that any large-scale attack would trigger international involvement, I doubt the US flexing more muscles at the border would have any big impact.

[DavidUpton]

But it's literally not what I am saying. I didn't put forth any suggestion for how to respond to the attacks, because I don't know what would work. Clearly trying to talk them down hasn't worked, and SK responding with military threats hasn't worked. I have no doubt that a full-scale war would work, insofar as it would certainly stop these intermittent, unprovoked attacks, but I don't think a war is the right way to go, because a whole lot of people would die in the crossfire. Including nice SK civilians and many US troops.

Then how can you say military action isn't the best course of action?

[Althalus28]

To be perfectly honest i don't think anything outside of North Korea will cause the country to change. Pretty much, if South korea reacts, there'll be war, if North Korea attacks, there'll be war. It the US flex their muscles and try to intimidate the North, there will some kind of conflict. Removing the Kim family would have some effect BUT who would do it? South Korea? The US? The North Korean military would respond violently to any attempts to dislodge their leader. So the only option i can see, is a civil war in North Korea, a major social change within North Korea. I'm just bouncing ideas around but were the Kim family to be removed by a faction of North Korea, then the Military have no-one to blame but those within their own country and cannot lash out at other countries. Of course then the civilians/soldiers/revolutionists would have to pick sides and would probably lead to a revolution/rioting/conflicts/war/skirmishes in North Korea and this would probably get a lot of people killed, but really i highly doubt North Korea would nuke themselves or flex the full military might against their own people (or so my theory hopes.)

BUT the people in North Korea are so controlled that i doubt there would be the numbers to rise against the million strong military. As i said i'm just throwing it out there that really, the safest way (in a sense) is you encourage the North Koreans to revolt. How that would occur i don't know, but other countries getting involved just bolsters the Governments cause. If you get me..

[Lord Justin]

Then how can you say military action isn't the best course of action?


because a whole lot of people would die in the crossfire. Including nice SK civilians and many US troops.

Did you ignore that part? Or do you just not care either way if a lot of people are violently killed?

How does my saying "I don't know what could work" translate to "the only option is warfare"? Violence is not the default response to a problematic state, it's an absolute last resort. I personally don't know what will work to stop them attacking; why should that mean I ought to favor a war? Or you for that matter?


...Pretty much, if South korea reacts, there'll be war, if North Korea attacks, there'll be war. It the US flex their muscles and try to intimidate the North, there will some kind of conflict. Removing the Kim family would have some effect BUT who would do it? South Korea? The US? The North Korean military would respond violently to any attempts to dislodge their leader. So the only option i can see, is a civil war in North Korea, a major social change within North Korea...

I agree with you, I think the most realistic option right now is to let them sort it out themselves. To add to that, the power handover from Kim Jung-il to his son might produce a lot of dissent and uncertainty in the populace, letting all the existing dissenters come out of the woodwork to start a movement toward globalization and modernization.

I imagine this could take decades to actually play out, as the people will need time to gradually lose confidence in their god-king and get used to the idea of re-entering the global community. But this scenario might play well into Css2d's idea of China outsourcing labor there; if the repression and cult worship elements of NK diminish gradually, bringing in Chinese jobs becomes a much more viable option.

[Onearmy]

Well, sometimes war is the only option. War sucks, civilians die, no way to avoid it.

Or we could play the waiting game and wait for a.) Revolution b.) Kim family to get out of office(will take a long time) or just simply try to assassinate Kim Jung Il(or his son) because a coup probably wouldn't work because of NK's military.

[Giraffas]

I don't think the waiting game can be applied to a nation in such a state of cult of personality. From the little info we have, North Koreans in general are indoctrinated into believing that North Korea is, indeed, best Korea, and that all others meddling with their affairs are potential enemies to their lifestyle, and that this is all thanks to Kim Jung Il and his father.

[herrvondrachen]

Because lets face it: This is sort of like what happened right before World War II. Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland and France and Great Britain disliked it but didn't do anything. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. Same thing, they did nothing. They annexed Austria, and still France and Britain stood by idly and watched. Only when Germany invaded Poland is when Great Britain and France stepped in, but by then it was a little too late.

My sentiments exactly. South Korea has been taking the appeasement approach for far too long. I think that the soft touch approach is what has emboldend NK to the point where we are at now. It could get very ugly though if this should break out into a full fledged war given that two super powers are backing opposing sides. I mean who knows what kind of military support China has pledged to NK in the event of incursions from the South? WWIII anyone?

[Althalus28]

If WW3 is fought with nuclear weapons, WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones. :P

[Guardian]

You have to put Elbert Einstein at the end!


But from what I have heard, nothing else has happened there since then. But I think something else will.

[DavidUpton]

Did you ignore that part? Or do you just not care either way if a lot of people are violently killed?

And the tolerance of those injured/killed in attacks is acceptable?


How does my saying "I don't know what could work" translate to "the only option is warfare"? Violence is not the default response to a problematic state, it's an absolute last resort. I personally don't know what will work to stop them attacking; why should that mean I ought to favor a war? Or you for that matter?

I didn't say "I don't know what could work" translates into "the only option is warfare", did I?

You say violence should be the last resort, but say you don't know what else to do in order to stop them attacking. The last resort is used when there is a lack of any other options. If you don't know what else to do, then there must be no options left and thus the last resort should be used. Ergo, you are indirectly saying military action should be taken.

[Lord Justin]

You say violence should be the last resort, but say you don't know what else to do in order to stop them attacking. The last resort is used when there is a lack of any other options. If you don't know what else to do, then there must be no options left and thus the last resort should be used. Ergo, you are indirectly saying military action should be taken.

And the key part that you're missing is that I'm not god, I don't know all the possible options. I'm also not a military or political leader who would also know much better than me all the possible courses of action that can be taken. And you don't know either.

Ergo, I am literally not saying what you claim to be inferring, indirectly or any other way. I'm only saying that I, Justin, personally do not know.


And the tolerance of those injured/killed in attacks is acceptable?

Who's tolerating that? The point of this discussion in the first place is that that is unacceptable. But why should we trade a few casualties per year for millions of casualties now if we aren't 120% sure we've exhausted every single last possible means to stop the attacks, aside from war?

[Oberschutze]

We defeated the Soviet Union because we outlasted them economically and politically. I certainly hope that we can do this with North Korea.

[DavidUpton]

Who's tolerating that? The point of this discussion in the first place is that that is unacceptable. But why should we trade a few casualties per year for millions of casualties now if we aren't 120% sure we've exhausted every single last possible means to stop the attacks, aside from war?

That isn't a valid argument. That's akin to saying we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany in WWII because we could have still appeased them, as well as because less people would have died had the Allies not declared war. Unless of course you do believe we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany...

[Lord Justin]

That isn't a valid argument. That's akin to saying we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany in WWII because we could have still appeased them, as well as because less people would have died had the Allies not declared war. Unless of course you do believe we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany...

Germany at the outset of WWII:

launching a genocide to kill millions of civilians each year
annexing the territories of major European powers
invading nations unprovoked
making plans for a new authoritarian world empire
repressing its citizens
had imperialistic allies expanding in two continents, committing another genocide as well as millions of atrocities, and bombing US naval bases unprovoked


North Korea now:

overly militaristic policies
repressing its citizens
military attacks kill <100 SK/US soldiers per year


North Korea is not fanatically imperialistic nor is it planning the greatest genocide in history nor is it attacking anyone it's not already in established conflict with.

If we hadn't gone to war with Germany, millions of non-German people would have found themselves under an oppressive dictatorship which aimed to slaughter tens of millions of Europeans. Millions of Chinese and Korean civilians would continue getting slaughtered and/or oppressed by the Japanese.

Sorry but this is not a good comparison. North Korea's atrocities are on its own soil and have nothing to do with new world orders or genocide. They're orders of magnitude less threatening to the world than the Axis was, and unless they become a serious threat to our allies, we have no duty to uproot their government.

I'm not happy that they are putting their citizens into concentration camps, their children are starving to death, and they are shelling SK villages. But these things are not enough to justify a war that risks the deaths of tens of millions of civilians and soldiers in a country we're closely allied with, as well as thousands of US soldiers. And that's not even counting the millions of NK soldiers and civilians who who would need to die in the process.

If a bear was threatening to eat your friends, the best solution would certainly not be running up to the bear with a grenade held at arm's length hoping the loss of your hand and the shrapnel hitting your friends would be minimal enough to justify killing the bear. Sure, the threat from the bear would be gone, but now you and your friends are gravely injured and you just annihilated a poor animal that didn't know any better.

[css2d]

I agree with Justin. The comparison with Germany is not apt, i doubt NK is in any shape for an invasion of it's neighboring countries.

Best thing for me to wait it out like with the soviet union.

[Roby]

I think the comparison would be more fitting to a WWI reference. I'm not a WWI aficionado, but the two larger countries backing up two smaller warring countries is pretty close.

[BeepBeepImAJeep]

Germany at the outset of WWII:
North Korea is not fanatically imperialistic nor is it planning the greatest genocide in history nor is it attacking anyone it's not already in established conflict with.


The holocaust was not the greatest genocide in history. Just the most publicized.

I agree with roby, its much more akin to a ww1 scenario.

I would point out that NKs attacks are technically acts of war and so SK and the US would justified in invading.

Also your analogy is inaccurate. The bear does know better, and we have been telling them to back off for 50 years. At some point you have to draw the line. Also your friends are fighting back as well.

Also, I dont understand how tens of millions of SK civilians will die, or NK civilians for that matter. Unless nuclear weapons are used, which I tend to doubt, that a significantly inflated estimate for casualties.

[DavidUpton]

LordJustin, I don't see how you can agree that war should be declared on Germany after carrying out numerous aggressive actions, but then not agree the same should be done with North Korea? Shelling an island may not be the same as invading a country, but that is irrelevant. It is still an act of aggression and even an act of war - and these aggressive acts have been going on for far too long.


Also, I dont understand how tens of millions of SK civilians will die, or NK civilians for that matter. Unless nuclear weapons are used, which I tend to doubt, that a significantly inflated estimate for casualties.

I think he is referring to Seoul being in range of North Korean artillery. But the idea of a massive North Korean bombardment threat being used as a deterrent is rather a moot point when you consider that the USA and South Korea would do their best to take out all artillery batteries before they could open up. It's called a pre-emptive strike.

[css2d]

Fighting was never the problem, rebuilding is, as we have seen the last few years.

[Lord Justin]

The holocaust was not the greatest genocide in history. Just the most publicized.

Fair enough. I should have said: one of the greatest genocides of the 20th century.


I would point out that NKs attacks are technically acts of war and so SK and the US would justified in invading.

The fact that they're "acts of war" is pretty irrelevant when you realize the war never actually ended.


Also your analogy is inaccurate. The bear does know better, and we have been telling them to back off for 50 years. At some point you have to draw the line. Also your friends are fighting back as well.

Let me try to clarify this. The bear is not Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un, or any of the leaders or generals of North Korea. The bear is North Korea. And the people of North Korea do not know any better, they are being manipulated, exploited and oppressed for the gains of the powerful. If we fought a war, the vast, VAST majority of North Koreans killed would be lower-class people either forced or manipulated into joining the military. I don't know how you can't understand the enormous moral problem with killing these people in order to stop the behavior of their leaders.

Last I checked the poor of NK were not voting to keep their leaders in office or petitioning to continue attacks on SK. Yet these are the people who would be required to suffer and die by the tens of thousands in order to resolve an open war.


Also, I dont understand how tens of millions of SK civilians will die, or NK civilians for that matter. Unless nuclear weapons are used, which I tend to doubt, that a significantly inflated estimate for casualties.

Because some large population centers in SK are within artillery range of the border. And because SK has half a million men ready to defend their country. Even if nuclear exchange was avoided, we'd still be looking at at least tens of thousands of dead soldiers and civilians.

And that's not a problem for you?


LordJustin, I don't see how you can agree that war should be declared on Germany after carrying out numerous aggressive actions, but then not agree the same should be done with North Korea? Shelling an island may not be the same as invading a country, but that is irrelevant. It is still an act of aggression and even an act of war - and these aggressive acts have been going on for far too long.

I guess you entirely and thoroughly missed the point of my last post. I was demonstrating the enormous differences between the aggressions of NK and the aggressions of WWII-era Germany. Germany was part of an alliance of imperialistic dictatorships spanning two continents and committing two genocides (the Holocaust and the Japanese atrocities in Korea).

North Korea is launching meager skirmishes on a longtime-contested border every now and then. It has no ambitions for imperialistic expansion and no motive for any kind of genocide. It has no concrete military alliances with other threatening states.

I guess the point to take away here is: there's a huge difference.

I've said it before and I will repeat myself one last time: war is an absolute last resort. Had we (the US) not declared war on the Axis powers, they may have gained allied territory through conquest, and certainly millions more would have suffered unimaginably and died in the Holocaust and in East Asia.

If we don't declare war on NK, maybe they will kill a handful of SK soldiers each year. Maybe several SK civilians. And the NK people will continue to suffer under an oppressive regime. None of these things pose a huge threat of imperialistic conquest or genocide.

Like I said: it makes me sick how NK treats its citizens. But unfortunately that's not our problem, we cannot police the world and we should not. And it certainly doesn't merit starting a war which will leave thousands and thousands dead in both countries, not to mention hundreds or thousands of Americans.


I think he is referring to Seoul being in range of North Korean artillery. But the idea of a massive North Korean bombardment threat being used as a deterrent is rather a moot point when you consider that the USA and South Korea would do their best to take out all artillery batteries before they could open up. It's called a pre-emptive strike.

It's called things don't always work perfectly, especially in wartime, even for massive military powers like the US. We have no guarantee that NK's guns would be disabled in time to save the millions of SK citizens who could very rapidly be killed.




Fighting was never the problem, rebuilding is, as we have seen the last few years.

This is also a very important point. If there was a war, we would win. NK just doesn't have the technology or alliances to win that war. But assuming the war is followed by a Korean reunification, which it would be, South Korea's massive economy and standard of living would be ruined for decades when faced with the unfathomable economic burden of NK.

And no doubt the US would plunge far deeper into debt in order to maintain a major occupation of the area for peace-keeping. Not to mention the huge amount of refugees that would pour into China, striking a blow on their economy as well.

[CBowling]

Another thing to consider is that if the US and SK were to declare war, NK would have the moral high ground. "impreriar argressiorn." One large thing in NK is how Kim Il Sung defeated "two great imperial powers." With this belief, the populace would place their faith and support in the Kims during a time of war, for they believe that the Kim's saved them in the past as well. The populace believes, with all it's heart, that NK is the right way. The true way. And that any attack on NK or the Kim's would be attacking their way of life, and many would die to defend it.

Many.

This is the type of government and system that NK has in place. You can't look at this from a Chinese view, a Russian view, a US view, or even a SK view. You have to try to understand the view that the NK people would probably have, and that view is of complete belief in their leader.

I agree with LordJustin completely. These "acts of war" are merely the breaking of a ceasefire. They war never ended. NK just chose to break the signed ceasefire.

Though one thing to consider is if this is put off long enough (a decision on what to do in this situation) and NK does get access to effective nuclear weapons, if the US or SK or anyone declared open aggression against NK, they could use those nuclear weapons on their own people and blame it on the US and SK.

Guess what: The populace would believe it and would just rally behind the Kim's and the military government even more. Thus, more deaths.

Unless SK or the US can come up with a truly effective plan that would oust the current regime and put in another, with minimal loss of life, I believe that open aggression should be avoided. If SK wishes to attack or retaliate, that's one thing. They are the ones being attacked. But the US, or any other superpower getting involved just spells disaster for it.

[css2d]

http://1stopkorea.com/index.htm?nk-DropPhonesnotBombs.html~mainframe

though I doubt that phones could make much of a difference, seeing they are limited in what they can do, given the reception range. I agree that contact with the outside could make all the difference. (see Iran for an example)

[Roby]

You think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad, A land war in Korea would be truly bloody.

[DavidUpton]

I guess you entirely and thoroughly missed the point of my last post. I was demonstrating the enormous differences between the aggressions of NK and the aggressions of WWII-era Germany. Germany was part of an alliance of imperialistic dictatorships spanning two continents and committing two genocides (the Holocaust and the Japanese atrocities in Korea).

Actually, I didn't. If you read my post properly you would see that I was saying that the differences in scale are irrelevant - they are still acts of aggression. It's like murder: you one person - it's murder. You kill ten people, it's still murder.

Also I don't know why you keep on bringing up Japan and Italy. Italy didn't enter into a military alliance with Germany until 1940, once it was sure that France was screwed, and Japan not until Pearl Harbour (and even then there was little direct military cooperation between the two). North Korea is allied to China. It may not receive any military aid from them if war does break out, but as I have pointed out, Germany didn't receive military help initially either.


North Korea is launching meager skirmishes on a longtime-contested border every now and then. It has no ambitions for imperialistic expansion and no motive for any kind of genocide. It has no concrete military alliances with other threatening states.

I forgot that sinking ships and firing at civilians is acceptable when you are meant to have agreed a cease fire. I wouldn't mind so much if it was Cold War style (i.e. stockpiling weapons, making threats, etc), but North Korea is actually launching attacks. How does that not register in your head as illegal? Additionally, North Korea does have imperialistic ambitions - unless you don't count the desire to annex the South as imperialistic.

Regarding genocide, you might want to re-check your facts. North Korea treats its citizens horrifically:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070728012214/http://www.hrnk.org/hiddengulag/part3.html
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kp0163)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karin-badt/torture-in-north-korea-co_b_545254.html

Also, see my point about China.


I guess the point to take away here is: there's a huge difference.

Of course there is a difference. Of course Germany's atrocities were more substantial. However, what you have done is skirted my point and led us down a merry lane of comparing North Korean issues to German issues. My point was simple: Germany was acting up, the Allies could see that appeasement wasn't working and so they did something about it. The holocaust is irrelevant because not enough was known about it at that time. The scale of German aggression, while greater than that of North Korea's, is largely made irrelevant by you're whole idea that war should only be the absolute last resort. Well, why couldn't the Allies just have Germany have Poland? That was an alternative to war. But no - it is ridiculous to allow a country to continue acting the way it has been when it is clear that peaceful methods aren't working.

You can't provide me with a satisfactory answer to my question of "what other alternatives are there?" You're answer was essentially "I don't know". We have place every sanction under the sun on them, yet they still continue to provoke the south.


I've said it before and I will repeat myself one last time: war is an absolute last resort. Had we (the US) not declared war on the Axis powers, they may have gained allied territory through conquest, and certainly millions more would have suffered unimaginably and died in the Holocaust and in East Asia.

Actually, you only declared war on Japan and even that was after they attacked the US. Technically, Japan had intended to declare war at a time coinciding with the Pearl Harbour attack, so really the USA declared war on no-one.

And I don't know why you are talking about Japan. I never once mentioned them or compared North Korea to them.


Like I said: it makes me sick how NK treats its citizens. But unfortunately that's not our problem, we cannot police the world and we should not. And it certainly doesn't merit starting a war which will leave thousands and thousands dead in both countries, not to mention hundreds or thousands of Americans.

I'm not saying the USA should police the world. What I'm saying is that South Korea has every right to retaliate.

If someone is punching me in the face, I wouldn't kindly ask them to stop and, failing that, then continue to be punched while I tried to think of another pacifist way to make the attacker stop. This is essentially my main argument.

[Lord Justin]

Actually, I didn't. If you read my post properly you would see that I was saying that the differences in scale are irrelevant - they are still acts of aggression. It's like murder: you one person - it's murder. You kill ten people, it's still murder.

No, sorry, killing ten people is much worse than killing one person. It's ten times worse.


Also I don't know why you keep on bringing up Japan and Italy. Italy didn't enter into a military alliance with Germany until 1940, once it was sure that France was screwed, and Japan not until Pearl Harbour (and even then there was little direct military cooperation between the two). North Korea is allied to China. It may not receive any military aid from them if war does break out, but as I have pointed out, Germany didn't receive military help initially either.

Because the topic of discussion is whether the US should now declare war on North Korea, and I am referring to the circumstances under which the US declared war on the Axis powers, because you brought up the comparison between North Korea and Germany. What did or did not happen by 1940 is irrelevant because the US joined the war in 1941, after Germany was allied militarily with two other oppressive dictatorships.

Make no mistake: China would not provide military aid to NK in the event of a war. It won't happen, so it's no comparison to Germany and the support it got from the Axis. The Chinese know their economy is tied strongly with the US and Europe, and the world community would shun them if they helped out NK.




I forgot that sinking ships and firing at civilians is acceptable when you are meant to have agreed a cease fire. I wouldn't mind so much if it was Cold War style (i.e. stockpiling weapons, making threats, etc), but North Korea is actually launching attacks. How does that not register in your head as illegal? Additionally, North Korea does have imperialistic ambitions - unless you don't count the desire to annex the South as imperialistic.

Please quote me where I said that NK's attacks are "acceptable." You can't, so let's move on. Also quote where I said it was "legal." Again, I did not say this. Their actions are reckless and unethical, but that does not mean going to war with them is the proper response.

NK does not have imperialistic ambitions. They want to reunify Korea, not conquer new lands. Their intent is to take a split country and put it back together. This is not imperialism in the same sense that Germany invading Poland and Czechoslovakia and Belgium and France is imperialism, or Japan invading Korea.


Regarding genocide, you might want to re-check your facts. North Korea treats its citizens horrifically:

You might want to re-check my post. I addressed this topic already. For your convenience I'll quote myself:


Like I said: it makes me sick how NK treats its citizens. But unfortunately that's not our problem, we cannot police the world and we should not. And it certainly doesn't merit starting a war which will leave thousands and thousands dead in both countries, not to mention hundreds or thousands of Americans.


Of course there is a difference. Of course Germany's atrocities were more substantial. However, what you have done is skirted my point and led us down a merry lane of comparing North Korean issues to German issues. My point was simple: Germany was acting up, the Allies could see that appeasement wasn't working and so they did something about it. The holocaust is irrelevant because not enough was known about it at that time.

You initiated the Germany/NK comparison. And I refuted this concept by showing that Germany was joined by a swath of allies hostile to many US allies and interests, and was involved in atrocities that make NK's labor camps look like Disney parks. And you refused to accept the massive differences which make such a comparison moot.

Whether or not we knew the extent of the Holocaust or the Japanese atrocities is beside the point; looking back through the scope of history, our war with the Axis was justified. The question now is, with that knowledge of history, is a war with NK justified now?


The scale of German aggression, while greater than that of North Korea's, is largely made irrelevant by your whole idea that war should only be the absolute last resort.

If you in any way disagree that war should be the extreme last option for any nation's diplomacy, then I don't know what to say.

However, it's very clear that nothing but war would have halted Germany and Japan in time to retake the massive amounts of land they annexed and save some of the millions of soldiers and civilians lined up to be massacred by these powers. But right now we don't know what can stop NK from attacking SK and oppressing its own citizens. War would work, but NK's threat is not urgent enough for us to condemn millions of soldiers and bystanders to death.


Well, why couldn't the Allies just have Germany have Poland? That was an alternative to war. But no - it is ridiculous to allow a country to continue acting the way it has been when it is clear that peaceful methods aren't working.

Maybe Germany could have had Poland (note the US didn't declare war when Germany invaded Poland!). Maybe they could have taken Czechoslovakia and stopped there. Maybe Japan could have annexed part of Korea and treated its new subjects as humans. Maybe Germany could have only slaughtered 2 million untermensch. Maybe then we could have kept relations open with the Axis instead of shooting bullets at them.

Thing is, they didn't. They occupied those places along with France and then bombed London to rubble. And they began the mass murder of 10 million civilians. And Japan began to torture and kill millions of Koreans, and bombed a neutral US base, killing thousands.

The alternative to the US declaring war on the Axis would be millions upon millions more civilians tortured and killed and both Germany and Japan having powerful, oppressive military presence in multiple foreign countries.

The alternative to the US declaring war on North Korea is that the North Korean people will continue to suffer under their own government and several SK soldiers will be killed annually.

The comparison is not apt.


You can't provide me with a satisfactory answer to my question of "what other alternatives are there?" Your answer was essentially "I don't know". We have place every sanction under the sun on them, yet they still continue to provoke the south.


No, my answer was exactly "I don't know." But me not knowing a better way does not mean war is the best way. I can't think of a clearer way to say that, so I'll stop trying.


Actually, you only declared war on Japan and even that was after they attacked the US. Technically, Japan had intended to declare war at a time coinciding with the Pearl Harbour attack, so really the USA declared war on no-one.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded part. The US declaring war on Japan is negated by the fact that Japan had not yet officially declared war on the US?


And I don't know why you are talking about Japan. I never once mentioned them or compared North Korea to them.

You brought up the comparison between Germany and North Korea. We cannot talk seriously about the Germany-US fight without also considering the entire Axis, since Japan triggered our involvement and we played a major role in defeating Italy.

The comparison can not be Germany to NK. That is disingenuous when considering US involvement. The comparison is Axis to NK.


I'm not saying the USA should police the world. What I'm saying is that South Korea has every right to retaliate.

Having the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.

If there is a rat biting my leg, I have the right to kill the rat and then locate all its friends and offspring and kill all of them to make sure I won't get bit anymore. But I have compassion, even for the rat biting my leg, and I'd much rather find a way to stop being bit without killing or maiming it and its companions.

Just to be perfectly clear: My leg is the SK military (injured but not cripplingly). The rat is NK's military (it doesn't know any better but it bites because it has to). The rat's friends are NK's unwilling conscripts and civilian bystanders (in order to remove the threat of bites, I would have to subdue them as well, including killing or crippling many out of sheer necessity).

Clearly I could win a fight against a family of rats, and doing so would stop them biting me, but I don't want to kill a family of rats because rats are living things who can feel pain.

To be thorough, we can say the biting rat is also abusing its family and friends by eating some of its children and keeping all the food for itself (this represents NK's government oppressing the populace). Even so, I do not want to kill and cripple any rat in order to stop this cruelty. I want to find other ways.


If someone is punching me in the face, I wouldn't kindly ask them to stop and, failing that, then continue to be punched while I tried to think of another pacifist way to make the attacker stop. This is essentially my main argument.

You should read some Gandhi. He had silly ideas about not responding to violence with more violence, but instead working to find other solutions. Even when violence is the quickest or most effective tactic.

[Onearmy]

You should read some Gandhi. He had silly ideas about not responding to violence with more violence, but instead working to find other solutions. Even when violence is the quickest or most effective tactic.

Ah yes, and for that I have a quote for you:
"Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Unfortunately, it's how humans are. It's in our nature.

[Lord Justin]

Ah yes, and for that I have a quote for you:
"Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Unfortunately, it's how humans are. It's in our nature.

That doesn't really fit the context, since nothing about David's posts indicate that he is sociopathic or malevolent like the Joker. If we were talking about the merits of Hitler beginning to conquer Europe, it might be more apt, but even then Hitler was acting in the belief he was improving the world by uniting it under a rulership devoid of conflicts (by being insurmountable) and undesirable or evil people (by exterminating the untermensch).

Unless you're implying David wants to sidestep reason and morality to destroy NK out of schadenfreude, but it's clear he doesn't. He too is arguing for what he believes to be the solution that will provide the most peace, and eliminate the most suffering, in the long run.

Yep, I just compared David to Hitler. But in a good way! :cheesy:

Oh and furthermore, I don't see how it's in human nature to act like the Joker, to "want to watch the world burn." That's more of a fringe philosophy held only by history's most terrible psychopaths, hardly characteristic of most humans.

[DavidUpton]

For the most part it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree. However, I must comment on this:


Because the topic of discussion is whether the US should now declare war on North Korea, and I am referring to the circumstances under which the US declared war on the Axis powers, because you brought up the comparison between North Korea and Germany. What did or did not happen by 1940 is irrelevant because the US joined the war in 1941, after Germany was allied militarily with two other oppressive dictatorships.

Don't make the assumption that the USA = the Allies. I never referred to the USA at all in any of my arguments - instead my argument was entirely based around the declaration of war by France and the UK - who were the initial major countries that formed the Allies - and as such your arguments about the USA declaring war is pointless.

[Lord Justin]

Don't make the assumption that the USA = the Allies. I never referred to the USA at all in any of my arguments - instead my argument was entirely based around the declaration of war by France and the UK - who were the initial major countries that formed the Allies - and as such your arguments about the USA declaring war is pointless.

No. And I never made that assumption. And you're missing the point of one of your own arguments.

You are failing to realize that the entire debate here is whether the US should declare war on North Korea. France and the UK are not teetering on war with NK, so they aren't relevant in a discussion about such a conflict. At some point you compared our (the US's) reluctance to declare war on NK with the US's widely supported and reasonably justified declaration of war on the Axis powers. You cannot compare the US fighting NK with the Allies fighting the Axis.

Your original point was "the US fought Germany's oppression, so it should fight NK's oppression" (keeping in mind "Germany" here represents "the Axis" since Germany's allies were a major factor in the US declaring war). The way you're expressing it now post hoc is "the Allies fought Germany's oppression, so the US should fight NK's oppression." This, clearly, is not a realistic analogy, since it contracts the US to do something now for reasons that the Allies did something then. That's illogical. The USA =/= the Allies.

Do you follow me? You're making a false comparison between what the Allies should do about the Axis and what the USA should do about NK. But all of the Allies aside from the USA are removed from this debate because we're not talking about their justification to fight NK, we're talking about the US's justification.

So your argument remains:

the US was justified in fighting the Axis,
therefore,
the US is justified in fighting NK


And my argument remains: that is not true, because the Axis was much more of a threat to our allies and to human life than NK is or will be in any foreseeable future.

"Agreeing to disagree" is a cop-out but if you want to stop debating, you're free to.

[DavidUpton]

Your original point was "the US fought Germany's oppression, so it should fight NK's oppression" (keeping in mind "Germany" here represents "the Axis" since Germany's allies were a major factor in the US declaring war).

Actually, looking back on what I posted, I originally was talking about the Allies. For some reason you have got it into your head that I was talking about the US, even though I never mentioned them.

"That isn't a valid argument. That's akin to saying we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany in WWII because we could have still appeased them, as well as because less people would have died had the Allies not declared war. Unless of course you do believe we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany..."

Note my use of "we" (and take into account that I am British) and "Allies".


The way you're expressing it now post hoc is "the Allies fought Germany's oppression, so the US should fight NK's oppression." This, clearly, is not a realistic analogy, since it contracts the US to do something now for reasons that the Allies did something then. That's illogical. The USA =/= the Allies.

Do you follow me? You're making a false comparison between what the Allies should do about the Axis and what the USA should do about NK. But all of the Allies aside from the USA are removed from this debate because we're not talking about their justification to fight NK, we're talking about the US's justification.

That's a terrible argument. Just because I was using different countries in the analogy doesn't make the point any less relevant. It's like when people were saying that the Iraq war was another Vietnam; the point was still there despite the fact it was Iraq and not Vietnam. It's perfectly valid, and it is done often, to compare what one person should do in the future against what a different person has done in the past.

In short, I am comparing the decision of whether or not the US should declare war on North Korea to that of France and the UK's decision to declare war on Germany.


So your argument remains:

the US was justified in fighting the Axis,
therefore,
the US is justified in fighting NK


No, because you have either decided not read my posts or you have confused yourself.


"Agreeing to disagree" is a cop-out but if you want to stop debating, you're free to.

There is a distinct difference between 'copping-out' and deciding not to waste ones time arguing with someone who isn't even on the same page.

[Lord Justin]

Actually, looking back on what I posted, I originally was talking about the Allies. For some reason you have got it into your head that I was talking about the US, even though I never mentioned them.

"That isn't a valid argument. That's akin to saying we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany in WWII because we could have still appeased them, as well as because less people would have died had the Allies not declared war. Unless of course you do believe we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany..."

Note my use of "we" (and take into account that I am British) and "Allies".

If that's the argument you want to make, then fine. I made incorrect assumptions about your position. I did this to make it logically sound, since your argument is not.

The conditions of France and the UK's declaration of war on the Axis was very different from those of the USA. France and the UK were in close proximity to Germany and under immediate threat of invasion and the bombing of population centers. The USA, across an ocean and operating under isolationist policies, was not under nearly the same threat.

Therefore, the analogy between France/UK attacking the Axis and the USA attacking NK is illogical. In both cases, the USA itself was not under immediate threat but was driven to consider war due to attacks on friendly nations and, arguably, because of dire atrocities. Therefore, in deciding whether to attack NK, we must draw our lessons from historical events where we (the US) or others were in similar circumstances as we face now.

We can and should take lessons from the actions of other nations, but in this case the actions of the Allies at large do not apply to the situation. If the US was geographically near an imperialistic and genocidal North Korean empire, the lesson would be apt. But as the situation is now, the only real comparison we can draw from WWII is the USA's decision to engage in war.


In short, I am comparing the decision of whether or not the US should declare war on North Korea to that of France and the UK's decision to declare war on Germany.

As stated above, this comparison is disingenuous due to the circumstances France and the UK found themselves in. Like a person defending his family from a home invader, those nations were obligated to use necessary force to battle the looming threat of German expansionism. Think of the US as the guy down the street who hears a raucous and debates whether to endanger himself by rushing to help.

Even if the Guy Down The Street had justification for aggressively defending his neighbors before, should he now go search out and savagely beat the children of a (domestically abusive) man who's harassing a friend of his, in order to stop the man's harassments and abuses? This is akin to what would happen in a war with NK: we would be killing and maiming unwilling (insofar as they're brainwashed) soldiers in order to halt the harassments of their leaders.


There is a distinct difference between 'copping-out' and deciding not to waste ones time arguing with someone who isn't even on the same page.

I hope I've made it clear we are on the same page, and thus cleared the way for a mutually-understood cop out. If you still want to, that is.

[BeepBeepImAJeep]

If you put it that way, the same could be said about nazi germany. Not all their soldiers were nazi fanatics, the majority were just fighting for their country and what they thought was right. So by that logic we shouldn't have gone to war with them because we were killing their "childern". Because Hitler was certainly that abusive father. Plus that analogy could be used for pretty much every war ever, not just this one, so I would argue that it isnt particularly valid.

And to call their soldiers unwilling because they are "brainwashed" is laughable. If we got into a war with them there would be no mass surrenders like there was in the 1st gulf war. Those soldiers were unwilling. Sure they might be motivated for the wrong reasons but to call them unwilling is a gross mis-characterization of the situation.

And david has a point, we are rapidly running out of options as to what to do with them. We have been exhausting all the diplomatic channels for the past 50 years. And personally I dont see any other alternative to going to war with them. We can only pressure China so much to do something about it, and SK will get sick off all this eventually.

Also last thing. David's not wanting to argue about this anymore is in no way a cop out. It is pretty obvious to me that regardless of what anyone says you will not change your opinion. So whats the point of arguing about it then? Especially since your argument so far has pretty much consisted of this "I don't know all the options so we shouldn't go to war, and you don't know all of them either so you are wrong." Its just not really worth the effort.

[Lord Justin]

If you put it that way, the same could be said about nazi germany. Not all their soldiers were nazi fanatics, the majority were just fighting for their country and what they thought was right. So by that logic we shouldn't have gone to war with them because we were killing their "childern". Because Hitler was certainly that abusive father. Plus that analogy could be used for pretty much every war ever, not just this one, so I would argue that it isnt particularly valid.

You are missing the point excellently. In all wars, people have to die. This is why wars are bad. People should not have to get shot and/or blown up. Even Nazis or Kims. I hope you can understand this point because it's essential to my argument.

So, yes, indeed, it would have been much better to avoid war with the Nazis. But they would not stop. The only option of the Allies aside from being conquered and hosting mass murders was to go to war with the Nazis despite the fact that many Germans did not believe in the cause of Nazism. Unfortunately, their deaths were worth stopping the Nazis from occupying and oppressing the rest of Europe.

Our options if we do not go to war with North Korea are....North Koreans will continue to go hungry and kill some SK soldiers.

This is very very very very very different from what the Nazis were doing. They were conquering and genociding. North Korea is not. They are very different.



And to call their soldiers unwilling because they are "brainwashed" is laughable. If we got into a war with them there would be no mass surrenders like there was in the 1st gulf war. Those soldiers were unwilling. Sure they might be motivated for the wrong reasons but to call them unwilling is a gross mis-characterization of the situation.

This just shows your lack of compassion for your enemy. If North Korean soldiers knew their Dear Leader was not a god, and that America does not want to destroy their lives, and that SK people are much happier and more free, and that the global community is rad and Juche doesn't have to mean "live Kim or die," then surely the vast majority of them would rest down their rifles and stop the pointless death.

Here is the key: many of them already know this. We know because defectors have told us of their own, and others', growing dissent. But they cannot do anything about it because they are living in a repressive dictatorship. Just like the Wehrmacht soldiers who didn't believe in exterminating Jews, or the Soviet soldiers who didn't believe in nuking the Western world, there are many in the system who are against the system.

The only way to stop the system through violence is to condemn these dissenters, and also the deeply indoctrinated, misguided fighters, to death without a chance to relinquish their indoctrination. If you cannot see what's wrong with this picture then I'm sorry for you.


And david has a point, we are rapidly running out of options as to what to do with them. We have been exhausting all the diplomatic channels for the past 50 years. And personally I dont see any other alternative to going to war with them. We can only pressure China so much to do something about it, and SK will get sick off all this eventually.

That's very easy to say from the comfort of your computer chair. "This sucks, let's kill some of them, that should do the trick! :smoking:". The world is not that black and white. In wars, lots of people die. Lots of people. They die. Wars are not Call of Duty. Even the enemy you shoot is a human being with a family and friends and aspirations.

I do not want 10,000 North Korean soldiers to die. That would make me sick. Furthermore, I do not want 100,000 North Korean soldiers and 100,000 SK soldiers and 10,000 US soldiers to die. That would be horrific.

There is not "nothing we can do about it." North Korea is not threatening population centers with WMD's. They are not committing genocide. They are not conquering their neighbors. We still have options, such as waiting for Kim to die and watching the dynasty's power diminish over time. As long as we have options other than war, war is not an option.

And again, just because you and I don't know what other effective options can be taken doesn't mean they're not there. All it means is we don't know.


Also last thing. David's not wanting to argue about this anymore is in no way a cop out. It is pretty obvious to me that regardless of what anyone says you will not change your opinion. So whats the point of arguing about it then?

That's absolutely correct, nothing whatsoever will change my opinion that right now, going to war is not the right answer. And I am right.


"I don't know all the options so we shouldn't go to war, and you don't know all of them either so you are wrong."

And I am still yet to hear a decent rebuttal to this. I cannot fathom a reason why we should go to war unless we have exhausted every alternative, even if you and I aren't aware of every last alternative.

You don't shoot a home invader unless he has a gun pointed at your family. Kim is a home invader with a worn out baseball bat saying he's gonna beat your family up if he gets the chance, and you have a gun pointed on him ready to fire.

I guess in this case you'd shoot him just for good measure? A home invader is a human being with a mind, and killing him for being misguided and threatening is morally wrong. That's not my opinion, that's a moral fact.

[DavidUpton]

So, yes, indeed, it would have been much better to avoid war with the Nazis. But they would not stop. The only option of the Allies aside from being conquered and hosting mass murders was to go to war with the Nazis despite the fact that many Germans did not believe in the cause of Nazism. Unfortunately, their deaths were worth stopping the Nazis from occupying and oppressing the rest of Europe.

Our options if we do not go to war with North Korea are....North Koreans will continue to go hungry and kill some SK soldiers.

This is very very very very very different from what the Nazis were doing. They were conquering and genociding. North Korea is not. They are very different.

Except my original point was never to compare the scale these actions.

My argument was that why was it unacceptable for the UK and France to allow Germany to carry on it's aggressive actions (and again, for the fiftieth time, the scale of the Holocaust was not known at that point so it is irrelevant) but it is acceptable to let North Korea go about its merry way and continue it's aggressive actions? Yes, yes, yes, I know invading a country is significantly worse than shelling an island, but they are still both aggressive actions and as such will both will lead to the same response.

Of course, the fact that North Korea's actions are less significant than what Nazi Germany did is the reason they have been given so much leeway. However, every diplomatic option that has been tried to restrain North Korea has failed. I also can't help but ask, Lord Justin, whose beliefs of what to do holds more ground: mine, which is backed by the South Korean defence minister, or yours, which is mostly based around your own admitted statement which amounts to "I don't know what else we can do".


That's very easy to say from the comfort of your computer chair. "This sucks, let's kill some of them, that should do the trick! :smoking:". The world is not that black and white. In wars, lots of people die. Lots of people. They die. Wars are not Call of Duty. Even the enemy you shoot is a human being with a family and friends and aspirations.

I do not want 10,000 North Korean soldiers to die. That would make me sick. Furthermore, I do not want 100,000 North Korean soldiers and 100,000 SK soldiers and 10,000 US soldiers to die. That would be horrific.

Don't treat us like 12 year old's who have absolutely no knowledge of the outside world or how war really works. I hate war as much as the next person, and disagreed with the Iraq war. The fact of the matter is, however, that I can't see North Korea adhering to any peaceful requests to stop its aggressive behaviour, and as such I believe a decision needs to be made - even if it isn't the happy-nice-fun-loving one.


There is not "nothing we can do about it." North Korea is not threatening population centers with WMD's. They are not committing genocide. They are not conquering their neighbors. We still have options, such as waiting for Kim to die and watching the dynasty's power diminish over time. As long as we have options other than war, war is not an option.

Yet earlier on you were making such a big deal about Seoul being threatened by artillery. Ok, it's not a WMD, but who needs a gun when you have a knife?


And again, just because you and I don't know what other effective options can be taken doesn't mean they're not there. All it means is we don't know.

That doesn't change the fact that you are arguing to do something when you're not even sure what it is.


That's absolutely correct, nothing whatsoever will change my opinion that right now, going to war is not the right answer. And I am right.

Oh dear God. I am just going to stop here. My respect for you has just taken a nosedive.

[Lord Justin]

That doesn't change the fact that you are arguing to do something when you're not even sure what it is.

I'm completely sure what I am proposing. I am proposing not to go to war with NK.


Yet earlier on you were making such a big deal about Seoul being threatened by artillery. Ok, it's not a WMD, but who needs a gun when you have a knife?

You weren't paying attention: I didn't say Seoul was threatened by shelling, I said it was likely in shelling range, in the case of a war breaking out. To my knowledge NK has not said they are planning to shell Seoul, or any other densely populated areas, if they don't get their way.


Except my original point was never to compare the scale these actions.

Are you sure? "That isn't a valid argument. That's akin to saying we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany in WWII because we could have still appeased them..." That sounds like a direct comparison to me. All I did was extrapolate that comparison beyond the oversimplified version you presented. And I showed reasonably how Germany and the Axis' actions were astronomically more threatening, sinister, and far-reaching than NK's could be in any foreseeable circumstances.


I also can't help but ask, Lord Justin, whose beliefs of what to do holds more ground: mine, which is backed by the South Korean defence minister, or yours, which is mostly based around your own admitted statement which amounts to "I don't know what else we can do".

Last I checked, DavidUpton, South Korea has not yet initiated a large-scale retaliation on NK. Therefore they must, in their process of governing, know that igniting a war would bring catastrophe onto their nation and their (in some cases literal) brothers and sisters in the North.

Even if that were not true, why is the South Korean defense minister's opinion to be held as the ideal? Are you implying that military leaders always have the best ideas about policy? Clearly not, since you've already expressed your distaste for our former Commander-in-chief's policy decisions. So I don't know why SK's defense minister should be heralded as infallible in his opinions.

Why do you keep latching on to the fact that I don't know what a better option is? A major aspect of rational thought is never to assume one has all the answers, and as long as you're not certain that every alternative has been exhausted, saying "I don't know" is perfectly reasonable. Anything else is just indicative of staggering hubris.


Oh dear God. I am just going to stop here. My respect for you has just taken a nosedive.

It's mutual.

[css2d]

I think that attacking North Korea is easily said, but at what costs?

I think you, David stated that "the artillery (pointed at seoul) would be destroyed in an preemptive strike". I don't think that is fully possible, especially after having the time to built hardened shelters/camouflage for about 60 years, where the launchers are hidden in hardened bunkers and can alternate between different positions (the first link talks a bit about the difficulties to locate and destroy them).


One source about the capabilities:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/m-1985-mrl.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/m-1978-170.htm


According to one report, a South Korean security analyst suggested that DPRK artillery pieces of calibers 170mm and 240mm "could fire 10,000 rounds per minute to Seoul and its environs." The number of Koksan guns is not publicly reported, but it is reliably reported that North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. Large caliber self propelled artillery pieces typically have a sustained rate of fire of between four and eight rounds per minute. This suggests a total rate of fire of artillery alone of between 2,000 and 4,000 rounds per minute. The DPRK's two hundred 240mm MRLs fire either 12 or 22 rounds, providing a maximum single salvo of no more than 4,400 rounds.

Now let's go back to the Cold War, I am sure there were quite a few moments people were saying to do a preemptive strike on the Soviets. And see how it turned out, they collapsed. Same will happen eventually with North Korea.

According to wikileaks (http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/09/08SHANGHAI422.html), there are problems with a successor.

[roopejoulupukki]

North Korea should be destroyed.

[css2d]

If it where that easy, it would certainly have been done, don't you think?

[DavidUpton]

North Korea should be destroyed.

That's an irrational comment to make.

While I support war with the North, I don't want to see it destroyed - I only want to see the dictatorial and aggressive leadership removed from power.

[css2d]

I only want to see the dictatorial and aggressive leadership removed from power.

I totally agree, I just don't think a war/attack is the best option :)

[Moody]

This is one of the first serious coupes that the two countries have had in a while. I think that right now there isn't enough justification to go to war, but if NK keeps this up, eventually something will snap and lead to war. Unless the NK people overthrow their oppressive government, or NK's aggressive actions stop, there will be a war at some point.

But I think it will take a bit more than that one shelling to lead to war.

[Onearmy]

I believe North Korea just recently threatened South Korea with an even bigger artillery barrage if they resume military exercises by the border.

[Lord Justin]

Got a source for that?

[DavidUpton]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40713808/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Also, in other news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101217/wl_afp/nkoreaskoreamilitarynuclearwarning

[Onearmy]

Well, the way I see it: The South backs down on their planned military exercises, which, may I remind you, are scheduled for either Monday or Tuesday, OR, they go ahead, and from there two things can happen:

1.) North Korea attacks(from here, this could either be full scale war or another skirmish)

2.) They don't attack which means South Korea basically doesn't have to take any of their crap because they know NK won't do anything.... But they probably will.

[BeepBeepImAJeep]

Well, the way I see it: The South backs down on their planned military exercises, which, may I remind you, are scheduled for either Monday or Tuesday, OR, they go ahead, and from there two things can happen:

1.) North Korea attacks(from here, this could either be full scale war or another skirmish)

2.) They don't attack which means South Korea basically doesn't have to take any of their crap because they know NK won't do anything.... But they probably will.

It kind of looks like all this is inevitable. I doubt SK would back down, it would make them look weak and could encourage more crap from the north. And the north cant back down from that threat without losing face either, and I guess I dont know much about Korean culture but in Japan saving face is very important. So this could end up in a war.

Also, I dont see there being a nuclear war unless NK starts one, and if that happens I would guess that you could watch their few allies drop away very quickly.

[BeepBeepImAJeep]

Lol, it looks like I was wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12039477

Well that proves that the North is all bark and no bite I guess.

[css2d]

Some pictures from inside NK http://blog.naver.com/chkcc/90105420479

[Lord Justin]

Even though I know the social situation is tragic in the North, I can't help but be awed by the natural beauty of Korea whenever I see photos of the countryside.

Also:

http://cfile25.uf.tistory.com/image/15491D0E49AF752CC7B3F7

"Korean Superman helps to push a discarded bus into a field. More at 10"

[css2d]

haha :D

on a more serious note, because of the famine, harsh winters etc, they hack down lot's of the trees etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3598966.stm (couldn't find a newer article).