North Korea

i think it's pretty clear this will come to not much, because yes SK has no real choice but to suck it up.

though to an american audience this is always about america (and our ships are around, so it partly is about the US in real terms anyway) so, if you couldn't guess how this conversation is going to go:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253821/north-korea-and-ripple-effects-obamas-foreign-policy-victor-davis-hanson

man i always forget how close seoul is to the border

also btw going to google maps and looking at nk is eerie. the level of detail is INSANE, except that it doesn't display any demographic data whatsoever (duh). no towns, no roads, no nothing. just high-def pictures of towns that may or may not exist. crrepy

Can't wait for the animated Taiwanese news video of all this.

South Korea can't do anything, and my impression is that South Korea wouldn't want to do anything even if it would be relatively "easy." There just isn't a political will to attack NK, especially among younger generations of Koreans. Most seem to view NK as a dangerous and sad country, not a rival/enemy. The South is all about managing the demise of the PRK with as little chaos and bloodshed possible.

xpost

Most seem to view NK as a dangerous and sad country, not a rival/enemy. The South is all about managing the demise of the PRK with as little chaos and bloodshed possible.

isn't this pretty much what the entire world thinks (at a diplomatic level)? that the end of the PRK will be a relatively quiet one, and that the main thing will be what to do with all the people, not actually blowing stuff up? i mean i really do think of NK as the planet's crazy cat lady---like its kinda hilarious and weird until you remember that its really, really awful to live there, in all likelihood, and the neighborhood will be better off when it goes away

It's scary because it's a heavily armed country with nothing to lose, known for its unpredictability and isolation, not to mention its bellicose saber-rattling, that currently may or may not be in the midst of a transition of power from one notorious despot to his mysterious son. And it's not simply a matter of disputed waters or whatever. NK disputes everything but its own all-powerful authority, which is partly maintained by its irrational military mentality. (Irrational in the sense that it feeds and clothes the army while the people starve, I should say).

The South is all about managing the demise of the PRK with as little chaos and bloodshed possible.

This. But unfortunately, the pantomime of mutual antagonism must continue, which increases the chance of one or both parties being pushed into a war neither really wants, especially when things like this result in loss of life. Like, what if NK had admitted to sinking that ship? Would SK have had any choice but to retaliate? Dunno.

i personally know you're not a neo-con hawk but this is the kind of response i'd expect from one!

I just think humoring lunatics is a fool's game, tbh. you will never win. they will still BE LUNATICS

well right, but i think that goes along with what JIC just said---it's less about "humoring lunatics" like yr patting them on the head oh you, and more about understanding fully that they ARE lunatics and that everyone is better off if let them lunatic themselves into an early grave. nb the everyone in the previous sentence explicitly does not include the people that actually live there, who are getting the short end in pretty much any scenario that doesn't involve the immediate dissolution of the DPRK and a massive influx of supportive services from around the world

I guess the other thing is I just don't see any winning scenarios for the PRK here - I agree obviously the ideal solution is to manage their collapse with the least possible bloodshed but otoh I think they are a bit of a paper tiger. they can't nuke seoul without fucking over themselves as well, and I'm kinda dubious that a starved, oppressed, ignorant populace makes for a dangerous and efficient military. but what do I know...

xp

Shakey, NK should certainly be shown "respect". (NB: This is not the same thing as respect.)

The reasons for this are myriad. NK has a duly constituted government. It may be constituted of shitheels and thugs, but it is a government all the same and international law, such as it is, "respects" such entities. Look how well it worked to decide to impose regime change in Iraq, for no better reason than its government was constituted of shitheels and thugs, and we imputed they had nuclear ambitions.

Beyond this, the practical reasons why a war there would be an utter disaster compared to maintaining the status quo would fill a book.

So, please refrain from knee-jerk reactions that wouold serve you better in a barroom brawl than in diplomatic relations. It's just such instinctive disdain that lets people like neo-cons whip up a nice little war for us with 85% favorable polling -- before the first shot is fired, of course -- that turn into "long slogs" that cost a trillion dollars or more.

Iraq not really the same scenario here, Dubya's "Axis of Evil" nonsense notwithstanding

well it IS in the int'l relations sense. like, the DPRK actually is a country with some semblance of administrative unity. it isn't somalia, you know? so unless you actively want to provoke someone with an army, you should probably toe the literal and figurative line

It's entirely possible that a war would result in the rapid collapse of the PRK, and the North Korean's love of the Great Leader (and willingness to fight) would instantly evaporate. The whole thing could tumble like a house of cards.

On the other hand...

xxxposts

Surely a government that willfully neglects its people in favor of military build-up forfeits some of its claim to international legitimacy.

btw I'm not advocating for invasion or anything here I just thought Shasta was being a bit OTT with his implication that the US/SK deliberately provoked NK here. the DRP is CRAZY, they will and have used ANY LITTLE THING as a provocation. trying to avoid provoking them is like tryign to keep the sun from coming up.

xp

of course i should add that even tho i'm "against killing" and wars and all, i occasionally wonder why the US doesn't just ace ppl like kim jong il. i mean, i KNOW why, but i've been conditioned by movies to assume that the assassination of a despot is a walk in the park, diplomacy be damned.

lol NK probably WOULD use the sun coming up as a pretext for shooting something somewhere

not sure what shasta was thinking, but i think that it's precisely BECAUSE the DPRK is so easily provoked that it seems a little foolish to involve US forces with any provocation (and certainly to encourage it).

The whole thing could tumble like a house of cards.

Echo of the infamous "they will welcome us as liberators" nonsense, pre-Iraq war.

oh come on we have what 50K troops there, we're all over everything

xp

Echo of the infamous "they will welcome us as liberators" nonsense, pre-Iraq war.

I dunno how much I need to emphasize this but Iraq /= NK

Echo of the infamous "they will welcome us as liberators" nonsense, pre-Iraq war.

― Aimless, Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:07 PM (16 seconds ago) Bookmark

ok, now you're pushing it a bit. iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse, if we're going to conjure up a spectrum of Bad To Live In.

1023: The BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says there has been no sense of panic in the capital

― James Mitchell, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:33 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

After 50+ years of having a billion DPRK rockets pointed at them they're probably inured to the threat of annihilation.

I just think humoring lunatics is a fool's game, tbh. you will never win. they will still BE LUNATICS

― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:56 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

feel like this is a pretty know nothing pov

please to spell out course of action wherein DPRK doesn't see "provocation" in every little goddamned thing

especially because those "provocations" are used for domestic audience and win points in internal power struggles.

I mean it's pretty obvious that NK orchestrates these mini-crisis for whatever reason.

love how you can be all THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ITS JUST NUTJOBS and then demand a detailed policy proposal in response, are you sure youre not the lunatic xp

NK is like a needy, violent kid - if you don't pay attention to it, it will ensure you pay attention to it. This has been the country's negotiation strategy for years. Demand crazy stuff, get mired in determining a compromise, establish a default detente, then do it over again. The relationship between NK and the USA has largely been one of extorter and patient extortion victim - they threaten to go nuke, we offer them food and fuel to not go nuke. Whatever advantage NK has in actually going nuke seems less than what is has threatening to go nuke, but who knows what makes these dudes tick.

Also, the relationship between the US and SK is a weird one as well. S Koreans seem to resent the US presence in their region, but at the same time recognize why we're there. I have no idea what would happen if we just left, though. Would NK consider that a victory? Does it matter?

In some ways NK reminds me a bit of Albania. Crazed despot isolates country, convinced an invasion is imminent. (Hoxha severed ties with ostensible Communist allies China and Russia, I think, because he was so paranoid). Albania is even littered with tens of thousands of bomb shelters, one in virtually every backyard. But of course, Albania didn't even pose a hypothetical threat to its neighbors.

I don't have a shiny uniform and a population to oppress so yeah I'm pretty sure

xp

love how you can be all THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ITS JUST NUTJOBS and then demand a detailed policy proposal in response, are you sure youre not the lunatic

but maybe I am a lunatic because I don't see how these are mutually exclusive positions. I DON'T think there's anything we can do because yes lol nutjobs. You seem to think there IS something we can do. Burden of proof is on you.

this thread: only just now hilarious

point is you make the laziest possible argument, one clearly not based on any particular knowledge of the situation, and then demand that people humor and educate you, in conclusion you must be a crazy person

I think it is so, therefore it is so. A contrary conclusion constitutes an extraordianry claim, which therefore requires extraordinary proof.

^_^

lol clean hit from the ice man

S Koreans seem to resent the US presence in their region

younger S Koreans more than older. people that grew up in the 50s there have a more understanding viewpoint towards US bases on their soil

NK has a duly constituted government. It may be constituted of shitheels and thugs, but it is a government all the same and international law, such as it is, "respects" such entities. Look how well it worked to decide to impose regime change in Iraq, for no better reason than its government was constituted of shitheels and thugs, and we imputed they had nuclear ambitions.

this is a stupid parallel in any case, but the logic of 'they have a duly constituted government' is pretty awful in its implications

not endorsing invasion btw, just saying that the terrible disaster of iraq has made people crazy

only awful in that it might suggest that a "duly constituted government" can do what it wants with its citizenry, right? cf nazis

"only"

iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse

also fucking ridiculous, "literally a million times worse", get a grip, or maybe read some about iraq

point is you make the laziest possible argument, one clearly not based on any particular knowledge of the situation, and then demand that people humor and educate you, in conclusion you must be a crazy person

I make no claims to having any specialized knowledge. If there is some rational basis (as Shasta implies) driving the DPRKs never-ending cries of provocation, by all means please elaborate. As far as I can tell, they use the flimsiest of pretexts to rattle their sabres and bare their teeth - whether or not the US actually DOES anything seems largely immaterial.

xp

also fucking ridiculous, "literally a million times worse", get a grip, or maybe read some about iraq

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:44 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

also fucking ridiculous: taking something like "literally a million times worse" at face value. my only point is that, from what i've read (clearly not a lot), it seems like the situation in NK for a given NK citizen is likely much worse than that of an average citizen in iraq under saddam.

the logic of 'they have a duly constituted government' is pretty awful in its implications

Agreed. But the logic of "we don't like their government, so we may use military force to whatever extent we desire in order to change it to one more to our liking" is, if anything, worse. The problem is creating clear criteria that will be fairly and universally applied. There's always a loophole, always a disagreement, and always a case to be made on each side.

As for Iraq/NK being a stupid parallel, I can't agree. The details of every conflict in every region will naturally be different, but where the parallel does exist is at the point where arguments are made that an aggressive war is justified by the behavior of the opponent. Those claims and counter-claims always sound hauntingly familiar, whether it is Iran vs. Iraq or the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

the point where arguments are made that an aggressive war is justified by the behavior of the opponent

FYI no one is making this argument

FYI no one is making this argument

The argument is indeed being made. Calling the opponent "lunatics" is integral to the argument for war. Saying, for instance, "iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse" is also a fundamental part of the argument.

What is lacking here is not the argument but the conclusion the argument leads to. Once the argument is well constructed in the public mind, the final step is a very short one. Many of us seem to be properly primed for taking that step, when called upon to do so.

you are being silly.

and fwiw I didn't mean no one's making that argument just on this thread. I have literally never seen anyone seriously advance the argument that NK should be invaded on grounds similar to those used as a pretext for Iraq.

otoh this entire thread DOES pretty clearly illustrate the lunacy of the DPRK. They are not rational actors.

I really don't understand the POV you're advocating here - that we should treat NK with the attendant dignity and respect that they demand, regardless of their actual behavior, policies, and public demeanor? gtfo

/FYI no one is making this argument/

The argument is indeed being made. Calling the opponent "lunatics" is integral to the argument for war. Saying, for instance, "iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse" is also a fundamental part of the argument.

What is lacking here is not the argument but the conclusion the argument leads to. Once the argument is well constructed in the public mind, the final step is a very short one. Many of us seem to be properly primed for taking that step, when called upon to do so.

wtf dude leave me out of this.

actually wait I've never seen anyone advance the argument that NK should be invaded on ANY grounds now that I think about it

You all are bickering like North and South Korea.