Wars don’t always start because any of the parties involved *want *to start a war. Sometimes they just… happen. One things lead to another, and suddenly 10 million people are dead.
I’m not entirely convinced South Korea really wants unification anymore. Sure, there has been a lot of talk that way over the years, and noises of that sort are still made, but it’s been a generation or two since Korea was one nation and to the younger people having a North and South is normal. Not sure they really want to make the necessary sacrifices re-unification would entail, which would be far more drastic that what happened when Germany reunified.
Germany has a long and distinguished history of being disunited and squabbling. The Koreans (with some exceptions) have a long unified history of being united and distinct from their very large and overbearing neighbours.
So I disagree.
Been reading up on the start of WW1 have we.
Good point. Looks like interest in reunification is pretty high, but is lowest among young people for whom the War is now two generations distant. They’ve always been two nations, and are increasingly feeling like two peoples. But Park has pushed hard to keep it in peoples’ minds; even among South Koreans in their 20s, 70% at least nominally support reunification.
Guns of August is my comfort book.
Yeah but I view war as still a 0% scenario, the DPRK largely needs China for economic support, without which the state would’ve collapsed decades ago and sent hordes of refugees over the Yalu–which is the realpolitik reason China cares even today. In the past much of the Chinese upper leadership still had a “comrade in arms” feeling of camaraderie with the North Koreans from the Korean War, but very few of those guys are still alive in the PRC and they’re in their 80s and older so even less are in positions of power.
What China might do in a war between North Korea and South Korea + United States thus isn’t really the key question. However I do think if North Korea started such a war with no provocation (say, by shelling Seoul with its massive artillery emplacements), I don’t believe China would stop the United States or even attempt to stop the United States from destroying the regime, but they would likely invade North Korea from the north as well in order to set up a client state (one lead by leaders hand picked in Beijing)–if the United States got in the way of that there could be problems.
But, does he understand that even if the U.S. stayed out of it, SK all by itself could crush him?
Assuming, per your thread title, that “an attack” = “starting a war”, then how much would you like bet? If my assumption is incorrect, than can you clarify what you think the chances of an actual war is?
I’m saying 0. This year. Next year, who knows what President Trump will do. 
Heck, I’m kind of curious about a scenario where Kim senses an impending coup, goes all brinksman to create the imminent threat of war, then back-channels a deal where he and his entourage and as much wealth as they can carry get safe passage to Switzerland, or some such thing. All done so his exile is under the best possible terms, but leaving everybody on the peninsula on high alert, one sneeze away from open warfare.
I think there is about a 40 percent chance of a war breaking out accidentally, triggered by young Kim miscalculating the Souths tolerance for provocation. Most likely it will then calm down again and back to business as usual. But there is also a slim but real possibility that Obama might see a weak and desperate North Korea as another opportunity for him to create a legacy for himself, as the President that got Bin Laden, and bought down Ghadaffi and North Korea.
I have little doubt that US and South Korean special forces and stealth fighters and counter battery fire could take out the artillery that is aimed at Seoul and any missiles that the North would try and launch. It would be messy but not destruction of Seoul messy. And the North is unlikely to have any way of launching their smallish nuclear weapons right now, their only missiles big enough take days to prepare on the launch pad and would be easily taken out. That won’t be true for much longer, sooner or later they’ll have a reliable long range nuclear capable missile.
So overall my guesses:
80 percent chance of north doing minor attacks, shelling and island or sinking a boat or two.
40 percent chance that it escalates into 3 or 4 days of tit for tat hostilities then the US calls for a cease and the south backs down.
20 percent chance the North fucks up big time, takes things way too far, the south goes ballistic and the US joins in.
And there’s a slim but real possibility that monkeys might fly out of my ass. The likelihoods of the two events are about equal.
But sure, maybe Obama will suffer a sudden brain injury that makes him think that a shooting war is something he’d ever want tarnishing his legacy. Maybe the same, very severe brain injury would make him think that all of his advisers and the entirety of the US Military–who will be screaming for him to see reason–are wrong and he’s right. Maybe the same, clearly increasingly severe brain injury would cause him to think that somehow he could start a major war, on China’s doorstep, involving literally millions of people and at least dozens of countries, some of them nuclear powers, and finish it cleanly. Or even with a reasonable end game.
Hey, in an infinite universe anything can happen.[sup]*[/sup]
[sup]*But fucking well won’t. Jesus, come on, you really can’t be serious.[/sup]
.
Always remember–around 50% of Kim’s Upper Echelon actually believe the propaganda.
They’ve been indoctrinated from birth.
Given the purges, this may be higher.
So,** they may not know** they can be stopped, even if Kim does.
Obama already has shooting wars tarnishing his legacy all over the place, including the ongoing one with ISIS. Drone strikes all over the place, the air campaign against Libya. What were these things if not shooting wars?
He wouldn’t intervene unless he had intel that the country was on verge of collapse, or perhaps unless some high up general in the North Korean military made contact about kicking out Kim with US and the souths backing. Both of those things are rather more likely to happen in the next year than monkeys flying out of your ass.
Very specifically and clearly not wars.
Disagree with the semantics all you want, fine. We can go with “boots on the ground” if you like. But no intervention in North Korea will involve drone- and airstrikes alone. Nor even limited Special Forces. It would be a capital-W war. The idea that Obama would willingly enter into one in order to add to his legacy of, um, not being in ground wars is laughable.
Cite? I mean, really, do you have any facts suggesting that either of those things is more likely than my getting hit by lightning tomorrow while pitching a no-hitter for the Mets?
And even if one or the other occurred–and they won’t–how does that mean that the CIC would commit the US to such a ridiculous clusterfuck?
My cite is the new sanctions that have just started, never before has China agreed to enforce sanctions against NK.
There are other powerful elites in NK other than the Kim family, eventually they will start to turn against the Kim family if the sanctions aren’t lifted.
Because the US wouldn’t have a choice. If the North collapses or breaks out in civil war then South Korea will get involved one way or another and the US is bound by treaty to protect south korea. Rather than let China take all of North Korea to the DMZ, both the south and US would be involved.
Ah, ok. Now it’s “if the North collapses or breaks out in civil war.” Gotcha. So not for [del]funsies[/del] Obama’s legacy.
Fine. Yes, if the Norks violate the DMZ*, we’ll be involved. (Seeing as how USFK includes close to 30 thousand US troops, and works closely with ROK in monitoring the DMZ, we’re arguably already involved. But of course that’s been the case since 1953.)
But neither a “collapse,” whatever that would look like, nor a civil war will necessarily result in a hostile violation of the DMZ leading to UN or US military involvement.
Regardless, I’m not seeing that a DPRK collapse is any more likely now than at any time in the past six decades.
*(ETA: I originally said “break Armistice,” but of course the DPRK never signed it.)
.
Sorry, missed this.
Ok, maybe. Eventually. Maybe. Why do you think eventually is 2016?
And why do you think those elites turning against Kim would result in violence spilling across the DMZ?
Cool story.
What? President Obama has (IMHO) exactly 0.00% interest in provoking a war with the Psycho-Peeps in N. Korea. It would cost hundreds of billions, kill tens of thousands, and that’s being optimistic. No president would be eager to put that on his resume. And you’re forgetting that S. Korea has 90% of the troops manning the line. I seriously doubt we’ll be doing anything without close consultation with their government.
They’ve had 60 years to dig in…and they have. Your confidence in counter-batteries and anti-missile defense is not totally wrong (ours and S. Korea’s defenses are modern and strong), but no military man worth his stars is going to risk it all on what cannot be known.
I do agree with you on the nuclear threat, it would be more likely to be used against S. Korean/US troops near the border to open an invasion route.
In this we are in agreement.
If those hostilities are at sea (already has happened) or on some obscure island, then probably–and it would be the S. Koreans taking the lead, doubtful our forces would ever be engaged. But if you are postulating that the North could attack in say, battalion strength somewhere on the peninsula, wipe out a S. Korean (or US) unit and then pull back and nothing further will happen…well, I disagree, but hopefully we’ll never have to find out.
I think the odds are much lower than 20%, but stuff can happen…I also have read The Guns of August more than once.
Ok I should clarify that in my OP the definition of “war” I am using is any hostilities involving ground forces that last for more than a week. Artillery fire counts. I’m thinking something more along the lines of the Sino-Indian war than Vietnam.
I’m saying there is a high chance of this kind of border war and a lowish chance that it then escalates into a full blown North South conflict. Why 2016? Combination of young Kim who still hasn’t consolidated his power and has something to prove, and China turning against North Korea and enforcing sanctions. Thats a particular dangerous combination. And on the exact timing, it will take six months for the sanctions to really take effect, which means September / October is when we can expect the north to do something rash.
Some links for those interested in the Koreas:
http://english.chosun.com/ - Major ROK news
http://38north.org/ real, informed analysis of DPRK
News | NK News - haven’t quite decided how real this one is
http://www.dailynk.com/english/index.php view of the North from ROK
Let me know when you find good intel on the internal mindsets of the Kim flunkies