Fair enough. I was thinking of that recent stealth bomber flight.
I don’t know. I’m sure they see that threats and the nuclear tests to this point have brought about reductions in aid and haven’t won them any concessions, but I don’t know if they understand that this method is not going to work in the future either. I’ve been saying that I thought that was why they kept making bigger threats. But I don’t know if they have any other methods or if they can get themselves out of this.
I just realized you are in SK. I was wondering if you could comment from SK perspective on two things I’m really interested in:
Do people still remember that having two Koreas was a decision beyond the reach of Korean people at the time? (I read somewhere that even while it was mulled as a possible outcome, there were protests against that idea throughout the country at the time to, obviously, no avail).
I seem to recall - recently - very intense process where relations got thawed to the point of openly talking about reunification. That never materialized – and admittedly I did not do my research – but I always wondered what the feeling in SK is about why that idea did not materialize? Do people think internal or external factors; if both perhaps or what?
Thanks for you answers in advance.
Many Koreans still blame the US for the split. A lot of the bitterness has gone away, mostly because the generation that was directly affected by the split is dying out.
Reunification talks probably hit their peak when Kim Dae Joong was president. But we’ve had a conservative in office for the past five years, and they always take a hard line approach when it comes to the North. Though I’d guess that most of my generation don’t really care about reunification anyway.
One concerning bit of news that I don’t think is getting enough attention is that, apparently, two North Korean submarines have gone missing.
I think they can sell it pretty effectively given their strong control over domestic information. Basically, “We responded by showing our nuclear prowess, which averted a planned invasion by the United States and their traitor-puppets in the South.”
I generally suspect this conflict will de-escalate without any fundamental change (to sanctions, aid etc.)
If North Korea strikes, I think that that the response is FAE. Fuel Air Explosives blanketing the arty that is threatening Seoul. Along with deep penetration bombing. Many bunker busters if you will. Well lots of them.
I really doubt that the tunnels and bunkers that NK has built could withstand that.
Get rid of the threat of the arty targeting Seoul. If Kim wants to talk then. Fine.
It’s horrible that a few thousand rounds of artillery shells might land on Seoul, but I think with combined effort the whole of NK’s artillery, that threatens Seoul could be taken out in hours.
Guessing that two 50 year old subs sank.
If the US does that , go to war with North Korea they risk other cold war or war with China or Russia.
The have to hope North Korea strikes first and China or Russia look away and does nothing for moment well US bombs most of military and government.
Statements like these cry out for a cite, or at least an explanation. I think this is preposterous.
And risk what happen last time US gone to war with North Korea?
The last time we went to war with N. Korea was in 1950. Things have changed significantly since then.
ETA: technically, we (or at least S. Korea) are STILL at war with them.
Yes but you do know that Iran and North Korea is China and Russia ally what Saudi Arabia is to the US and Europe.
It true that Russia and China are getting tired of problems in North Korea because he is crazy and unstable for everyone even them.If North Korea strikes first I’m sure support for full scale war with North Korea will be supported by Russia and China .
That was in the 1950s. The Soviet Union doesn’t exist any more, and China and U.S. are enormous trading partners. If you think this kind of thing could trigger a cold war, you need to explain why and how. It’s reasonable to say they have not wanted a U.S.-friendly regime in North Korea, but the current regime seems to have exhausted a lot of China’s patience.
Do you really not understand that China is opposed to the North Korea nuclear program? Why would they support the Kims in a war, and what would they have to gain? If there’s a war, there will be a new government in North Korea. The most sensible move to China would be to get on board to minimize the economic and social disruption that follows.
And slightly more than the total population of NK.
[shrug] If history repeats, we’ll get a good long-running sitcom out of it, at least.
I’m not even sure where Russia comes into this. They’ve got their own problems.
Over the last 2 decades, they’ve been increasing their trade with South Korea and were trying to set up some kind of agreement to ship South Korean products to Europe via rail through Russia. Of course, they need North Korean cooperation for this.
There are signs Russia itself is getting tired of North Korean antics. Historic friendship aside, money is money, and NK is costing its allies quite a bit of coin for no obvious return.
Where in the name of god are you pulling this nonsense from? This is a complete non sequitur; Japan occupied the whole of Korea, not just the North. They most certainly did not consider it to be a part of Japan proper. You tried to use the Chinese occupation of Tibet as a precedent for why China annexing North Korea would be a plausible idea, ignoring millennia of Korean-Chinese history and stating having shared similar political systems that North Koreans might naturally prefer joining China. This is utter bullocks, and part of the Chinese justification for invading Tibet was that it has historically been considered a part of China by the Chinese. Korea never has. What Japan’s occupation of Korea has to do with any of this is beyond me. Japan considered Korea as a colonial conquest, not a part of Japan proper, and it certainly didn’t consider Koreans to be Japanese citizens.
Indeed. All I did was point out to you exactly how much of a flight of fancy it is.
It’s clearly a much better assumption than thinking it will be decided by “Great Powers” and that China is going to annex North Korea.
Seriously? You think that in order to avoid having illegal and unwanted immigration from poverty stricken North Korea China would want to take over all of the unwanted poverty stricken North Koreans? This is literally like expecting those pushing for a border fence with Mexico to turn around and decide the best course of action is to annex Mexico into the US in order to prevent future illegal immigration.
If you are aware of this, then why did you use “diverging language” as a reason why North Korea is closer to China than the South? There is no evidence that the Korean language is in any danger of fracturing into two mutually unintelligible languages in any foreseeable future, and Chinese and Korean are mutually unintelligible languages right now.
:rolleyes: No, I don’t limit culture to “the arts or something.” I also don’t confuse political indoctrination with national culture. Totalitarianism isn’t national culture. Germany wasn’t culturally closer to the USSR than to say, Austria when the Nazis were in charge but before the anschluss. East Germany wasn’t culturally closer to Romania than it was to West Germany when both East Germany and Romania were behind the Iron Curtain and ruled by totalitarian dictatorships.
Not the greatest bit of news, but it’s certainly not anything unusual. South Korea doesn’t know where most of North Korea’s mini-subs are most of the time. The news articles are badly translated, but they refer to 150 ton or so mini-subs, the same kind as the one that washed up at Gangneung in 1996. The South Koreans didn’t even know it was there to lose track of it until it grounded close enough to shore to be half-surfaced when the tide went out.
There has been a recent spike in interest in “camping equipment” in Seoul.
The Seoul subway system.
They guns you are talking about can’t flatten a decent size chunk of very much. These are artillery not nukes. Its still better to avoid even the indecent flattening but if we had actionable intelligence that they were about to start shooting, it would be prefereable to what would happen if we let them get off one volley.
You do know they have nukes, right? Do the Palestinians have nukes? How would you feel about standing up to the Palestinians if they had nukes that could hit Tel Aviv?
Obama sucks at brinksmanship.
He only has to sell it to a small group of people.
I doubt they would have done it if Assad had nukes.
Why not? Given time, the problem might just solve itself.
I’m not in Korea but the conservative government abandoned the “sunshine policy” which was arguably defrosting the North South relationship.
That doesn’t answer the question. Martin Hyde addressed how this might be spun to the public (which was my initial question), but if this is directed at the leaders of the military and other powerful insiders - some people theorize that they’re marginalizing Kim or competing with him, though I have no idea at all if that’s true - how does it come across as a win?
If I recall, China has treaties with North Korea similar to those the US has with the South. They are pledged to defend their ally if their ally is attacked. Granted, governments don’t always keep their word, but sometimes they do.