# N. and S. Korea firing artillery at each other **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645 "2010-11-23T06:29:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/501 "2010-12-08T04:28:59Z")
And also: Not every subject that can be separated into 2 positions (like creationism or evolution) deserves to be treated with a “fairness doctrine” when the evidence is overwhelming against one of those positions. My position continues to be that regardless of the excuses North Korea can invent for the bombing of the SK island, that the reply from North Korea was totally uncalled for as they did not care that civilians (and even soldiers should not be ignored IMO) where there. And it is history where I base the idea that it is the say so of North Korea that does not deserve attention, North Korea should allow some basic freedoms of the press at least for me to consider their say so as valid. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/502 "2010-12-08T04:42:41Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > I have addressed FinnAgain’s queries numerous times, most recently in post #419. Keeping with in the rules of the forum I will simply note that this is laughably, blatantly, obviously false. You have never once addressed a single one of my questions, you have instead avoided addressing them, used strawmen, tried to change the subject, etc. Here, assuming that your claim is accurate, quote where in post 419 you address a single one of the questions you’ve been avoiding -Found that cite yet to prove your claim that under international law or custom, NK’s military response was “justified” or “appropriate”, seeing as how that was your claim and you’ve never provided any proof for it? -Found that cite yet to prove that North Korea routinely (or ever) refers to territories that are claimed by SK as “disputed” rather than simply North Korea’s territory? -Found that cite yet to prove that I have made assertions, that I did not then cite, about any of the things you’ve invented and claimed I’ve said? It’s very clear that you’ve never once cited international law or custom showing that NK had a valid casus belli, never once cited referring to disputed territories as disputed rather than theirs, and never once cited any of the strawmen you made up and claimed I’ve said. That is why, of course, the best you _can_ cite is[post 419](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13215358&postcount=419) where everybody can see what you do is change the subject and demand that someone prove a claim that they’ve never made, while you steadfastly refuse to prove your own. In keeping with your generally Orwellian argument “i refused to answer the questions, changed the subject and made some stuff up and demanded that someone prove it as if they’d said it themselves.” means “I answered the question.” It’s clear that your nonsense about “proving your assertions” was just a cover for your vacuous argument, since as soon as you’re asked to provide proof that NK’s actions were “justified” and “appropriate” your response is “Nope, and you can’t make me!” > [@Commissar](#): > > My position remains unchanged. international law, nations are not required to support their actions absent a treaty-based challenge thereto. Yet again you showcase your ignorance. No, nations cannot simply engage in acts of war without a valid casus belli. And no, you still have no idea that international treaties are a subset of international law, not the other way around. The conditions under which a nation may engage in violence against another nation are quite clearly spelled out. Not starting a war doesn’t have to be justified, starting a war does. Now provide a cite in international law or custom for how NK had a valid casus belli. I kid, I kid, we all know that you can’t, since you’re wrong. > [@Commissar](#): > > I am not supporting North Korea’s actions, because we do not know what those actions actually were Okay, this is the best unintentional comedy of the thread. > [@Commissar](#): > > I wouldn’t exactly call Amnesty International an unbiased source, either. It has a very real objective, and that objective tends to make it less than fair to authoritarian states. I was wrong. _This_ is the best unintentional comedy of the thread. “The [del]children[/del] fascists, won’t someone think of the [del]children[/del] fascists?!?” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/503 "2010-12-08T05:09:13Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > Also, diplomacy? When did this happen? From what I’ve been hearing, South Korea’s been ramping up its belligerence and threatening airstrikes against the North. [South Korea begins live-fire military drills - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11923866) Oh and, as always, fact-checking is required. (Who’d a thunk it?) What does the article actually say? > [@](#): > > The drills are spread off South Korea’s east, west and south coasts; the most contentious area - the disputed western sea border - has been largely excluded. > > It comes two weeks after North Korea shelled a Southern island in response to previous military exercises there, killing four South Koreans. > > North Korea has warned that it viewed any such activity as provocative. > > South Korea’s new defence minister, installed after the attack on Yeonpyeong island, has said he would use air strikes against the North if it attacks civilians again. Our next entry in the Orwellian Dictionary is, of course > [@](#): > > Belligerence: noun > > 1. Engaging in self defense > 2. Saying you will engage in self defense > 3. Not liking Fascists > > Example of belligerence- > If a nation, that’s just indiscriminately rained down death on your civilian and military forces over what it admits was some splashes in the ocean, threatens you again and you say that you’ll defend yourself if they attack you again. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/504 "2010-12-08T06:04:30Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Show where in international law or custom “defense of sovereignty” is defined, and how it is equated with “self defense”. Then show how “defense of sovereignty” is required/justified if something falls into open water that you claim. > Additionally, show when why NK claims “self defense” instead of saying that they mean “self defense”, you find it necessary to invent an alternate meaning. > > And then, identify _why_ you have decided that NK really meant something totally different than what it said. Show me where I said that NK was relying on international law or where I excuse their behaviour. Show me where countries are not allowed to use terms and phrases that are not defined by international law. And then, tell why you think that NK is using a definition of self defense that is clearly inaccurate? NK was clearly not responding to exigent circumstances and they couldn’t possibly hope that people would believe they were so why would they cry self defense (as you understand how they are using the term)? Isn’t it more likely that they are using the phrase self defense in some other sense? Or are you just going to go with the reading that makes them seem the most irrational? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/505 "2010-12-08T06:13:53Z")
[quote=“GIGObuster, post:490, topic:561645”] > **[Technical Difficulties](https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm)** So the comment that made me ask was “Further explain why North Korea outlawed people procuring their own food when the state couldn’t provide.” It seems like your link is saying that NK outlawed private markets after they were once again able to provide food. They permitted some markets while there was scarcity and then abolished them when the scarcity disappeared not when the state couldn’t provide. With that said this makes it clear that the NK government wants to control food whenever it can. > [@](#): > > You were one of the people that supported the reforms? Congratulations, now you are now part of the “wavering” or “hostile class” A quarter of the people in NK are “hostile”? Geez, how many are wavering? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/506 "2010-12-08T06:14:58Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > [Not only did I provide a cite, the relevant portion of which I quoted fully, but I did so in response to Commissar.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13219470&postcount=460) His ignorance on that point is, well, odd. I haven’t been to North Korea in a while so I’m not really up to date on everything that has happened there. My knowledge is based on current news sources and conversations with people. I haven’t done a thesis on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/507 "2010-12-08T06:18:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It’s unclear to me how such a totalitarian regime could be viewed as anything other than evil, to be undermined and destroyed as opportunities arise. > > Sure, maybe they’re not starving their people _on purpose_, but by refusing to take action to prevent the famine, and indeed in taking actions that make it worse, the practical difference between incompetent leadership and sadistic leadership becomes tenuous at best. Are you under the impression that I don’t view the NK regime as evil? I think they are one of the worst regimes on earth. If there was some way to get rid of it without flattening Seoul, I think we should do it but we can do without the hyperbole because I have seen this movie before. We make wildly hyperbolic statements about a regime that is greatly deserving of criticism. Noone says anything to set the record straight and before you know it the folks on fox and friends are repeating the hyperbole as if it were documented fact as they beat the drums of war. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/508 "2010-12-08T06:26:20Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > No, South Korea has been involved in two violent incidents, which may have been started by either Korea. I am not ready to blindly accept South Korea’s “Who, me?” Never!" version as the truth, any more than I am willing to swallow North Korea’s version without more proof. Short of actually watching footage of the whole thing from beginning to end, what could convince you to believe what the rest of the world (including NK’s allies) believe? That they torpedoed that SK navy ship a while back and they retaliated against SK’s shelling of open water with a shelling of a military base? > [@](#): > > Also, diplomacy? The current NK president is like George W Bush and Dick Cheney. He spent his whole youth dodging compulsory military service and has to prove how tough he is by rattling his sabre. > [@](#): > > I am not supporting North Korea’s actions, because we do not know what those actions actually were, or why they occurred. We have a pretty high degree of certainty about most of the facts surrounding the events of that morning. > [@](#): > > What I AM supporting is North Korea’s right to a fair determination of guilt rather than a mindless stampede to get on the South Korea bandwagon. Frankly, I’m disappointed by how readily Western media accepts unsubstantiated stories, as long as they happen to come from Western nations or their puppet states. Well there are videos that are pretty compelling. SK shot into open water and NK responded by shotting at a military base. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/509 "2010-12-08T06:29:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Noone says anything to set the record straight and before you know it the folks on fox and friends are repeating the hyperbole as if it were documented fact as they beat the drums of war. Together with your previous post reply to **FinnAgain** , this last bit shows to me that so far what you said could \*\*not \*\*set things straight. Incidentally, I do not agree that we should go to war even with the dastardly recent act from NK. SK should roll with the punches and wait for the next move from NK. Just like before, I do think that it will be the NK leadership the one that will decide where to go from here. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/510 "2010-12-08T06:31:54Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Oh and, as always, fact-checking is required. (Who’d a thunk it?) > > What does the article actually say? > Our next entry in the Orwellian Dictionary is, of course You’re not saying that live fire military drills are a form of self defense are you? I thought self defense meant something very specific in your lexicon. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/511 "2010-12-08T07:00:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The current NK president is like George W Bush and Dick Cheney. He spent his whole youth dodging compulsory military service and has to prove how tough he is by rattling his sabre. [Really, now?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Myung-bak#Early_life_and_education) > [@](#): > > In his autobiography Lee writes that he was dismissed from Korea’s mandatory military service due to a diagnosis of acute bronchiectasis while at the Nonsan Training Facility. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/512 "2010-12-08T08:33:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Bingo. > > So care to deal with what they say instead of playing “fairness games”? What I see so far is an extreme effort to discredit even organizations that have been against the US in the past, that is just like the efforts I have seen with many pushing conspiracy theories. What you dismiss as a “fairness game” happens to be of some importance to me. That is what initially prompted me to join this discussion - unfair allegations regarding the Korean peninsula by a handful of uninformed posters. However, since you would like my take on the Amnesty International opinion piece… Overall, I am not convinced. In my experience, anecdotal accounts provided by dissident refugees tend towards hyperbole, if not outright misrepresentations. Who knows? Perhaps there is a kernel of truth there; if so, that would be worrying. However, I see no compelling reason to blindly accept a second-hand account from a clearly biased source as gospel. I would like to see more, not to mention better, evidence first. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/513 "2010-12-08T08:51:08Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > It’s very clear that you’ve never once cited international law or custom showing that NK had a valid casus belli, never once cited referring to disputed territories as disputed rather than theirs, and never once cited any of the strawmen you made up and claimed I’ve said. That is why, of course, the best you _can_ cite is[post 419](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13215358&postcount=419) where everybody can see what you do is change the subject and demand that someone prove a claim that they’ve never made, while you steadfastly refuse to prove your own. > > In keeping with your generally Orwellian argument “i refused to answer the questions, changed the subject and made some stuff up and demanded that someone prove it as if they’d said it themselves.” means “I answered the question.” > It’s clear that your nonsense about “proving your assertions” was just a cover for your vacuous argument, since as soon as you’re asked to provide proof that NK’s actions were “justified” and “appropriate” your response is “Nope, and you can’t make me!” > > Yet again you showcase your ignorance. No, nations cannot simply engage in acts of war without a valid casus belli. And no, you still have no idea that international treaties are a subset of international law, not the other way around. The conditions under which a nation may engage in violence against another nation are quite clearly spelled out. Not starting a war doesn’t have to be justified, starting a war does. Now provide a cite in international law or custom for how NK had a valid casus belli. It seems to me that you may, perhaps, be unclear on the concept of “law” in general. Contrary to your apparent position, law is a human invention that derives from actual human sources. When invoking law, it helps to be actually able to point to a statute, treaty, or some other document, and proclaim, “Here is the law.” Instead, you appear to take the position that you, personally, can mandate what the law is with no reference to any written authority. I do not find this persuasive. You have, so far, utterly failed to reference anything approaching international law. You made one attempt to do so (citing a non-binding non-governmental manual of proposed codes of conduct) and then gave up. I’m still waiting for you to openly state which specific international laws you believe are applicable here, and why you believe that North Korea violated them. So far, you have gone out of your way to avoid providing any answers to these questions. Instead, you have given meaningless statements such as the following: “It’s very clear that you’ve never once cited international law or custom showing that NK had a valid casus belli…” Law doesn’t work that way. If I cross the street, it is unreasonable for you to run up to me and demand to know what legal authority I have for crossing the street. If you believe that the act was illegal, then state which law I violated, and I can then provide defenses if needed. “No, nations cannot simply engage in acts of war without a valid casus belli.” I need a cite to applicable international law. “And no, you still have no idea that international treaties are a subset of international law, not the other way around.” If you cannot find a treaty to support your position, feel free to look for other sources. But I do need to see an actual source, rather than hear you repeat unsupported statements ad nauseum. Let’s see that source. “The conditions under which a nation may engage in violence against another nation are quite clearly spelled out.” Where? If it’s clearly spelled out, let’s see it. And so on and so forth. I’ll wait for your cites, but I won’t hold my breath. So far, you have dodged all my requests to support your allegations, all while ironically accusing me of doing just that. The problem is that you will find no support for what you claim in international law. The few documents that actually exist and apply here, were you to read them, would quickly show that North Korea did nothing wrong here under the scenario it outlined. Feel free to prove me wrong. With an actual international law, please, not with your personal opinion of what the law ought to be. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/514 "2010-12-08T08:57:16Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Short of actually watching footage of the whole thing from beginning to end, what could convince you to believe what the rest of the world (including NK’s allies) believe? That they torpedoed that SK navy ship a while back and they retaliated against SK’s shelling of open water with a shelling of a military base? I would be satisfied with any proof that crosses the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold. Unedited footage would be good. An admission of guilt would also work. Failing that, I would settle for an official finding presented by a clearly disinterested party, along with the evidence used to reach that finding. For purposes of this determination, a “disinterested party” is one that has not previously demonstrated a political, economic, social, or philosophical preference for either party to the dispute. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/515 "2010-12-08T09:13:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > NK was clearly not responding to exigent circumstances and they couldn’t possibly hope that people would believe they were so why would they cry self defense (as you understand how they are using the term)? Ah yes, North Korea wouldn’t say things that they couldn’t possibly hope that… > [@](#): > > As the world recognizes, the DPRK is the best socialist society centering on the masses in the world. > All people exercise their rights as genuine masters of the state and society and learn, work and enjoy happiness to their hearts’ content under the care of the party and the state and step up the second grand chollima march, helping and leading one another forward under the slogan “one for all and all for one.” > In this society, “turmoil” is impossible and unimaginable. > There can be “turmoil” in such a colonial fascist dictatorial society as South Korea where exploitation and oppression hold sway, human rights are trampled underfoot ruthlessly and the rich get richer and the poor poorer. > False propaganda can convince no one. …oh. Duly noted though Damuri. Faced with what NK actually said and what they rather clearly meant to imply in regard to their unprovoked act of naked and indiscriminate aggression, you’ve got the powerful and persuasive Argument From Nuhn Unhn!!! > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You’re not saying that live fire military drills are a form of self defense are you? I thought self defense meant something very specific in your lexicon. … Yes, self defense means defending one’s self. As opposed to how you’re using it, which you still haven’t clarified except you’re using to somehow make NK’s insane propaganda kinda rational. Here, you’ve managed to misunderstand a very clear statement that using defensive air strikes against NK if NK attacks civilians again is self defense and not “belligerence”… and you’ve somehow morphed that into a comment about the live fire exercises. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > SK shot into open water and NK responded by shotting at a military base. And this after trying to take XT to task? No… what actually happened was that NK shot, indiscriminately, using unguided rockets, at an Island that happened to have a military base on it. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Show me where I said that NK was relying on international law or where I excuse their behaviour. NK claims that its actions were in accord with the principle of self defense, which I’ve pointed out is pretty much the only bit of international law which would allow a strike of its nature in these circumstances, and you claim that it meant something else but you can’t explain what or why that was used so that it would make any sense as a casus belli. And despite claiming that the ‘something else’ was being used to stand in for “self defense”, a term that NK was cleary using to justify military action as if it was a casus belli, you can’t explain how it’s got anything to do with self defense as it’s understood in international law or international custom. We can, of course, safely ignore your nonsense about how countries “are not allowed to use terms and phrases that are not defined by international law”. Your argument is twisted in a Gordian Knot so you can try to claim that “self defense” doesn’t mean “self defense”. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/516 "2010-12-08T09:50:07Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > “It’s very clear that you’ve never once cited international law or custom showing that NK had a valid casus belli…” That’s right, you haven’t. Going to provide it any time soon? Soon, right? I mean, it’s your assertion, you hate when people make assertions and don’t support them. So you’re going to support it, right? Not like that hypothetical theist who says: “North Korea’s actions were _justified and appropriate_ and if you disagree, it is your duty to prove that they weren’t.” Oh, no, sorry, that’s you. The hypothetical _theist_ says: “God exists, and if you disagree, it is your duty to prove that he doesn’t.” Which is _totally different_ from what you’re saying. Totally. > [@Commissar](#): > > Instead, you appear to take the position that you, personally, can mandate what the law is with no reference to any written authority. A strawman, plus changing the subject? Unexpected! Here, to remind you again: -Found that cite yet to prove your claim that under international law or custom, NK’s military response was “justified” or “appropriate”, seeing as how that was your claim and you’ve never provided any proof for it? -Found that cite yet to prove that North Korea routinely (or ever) refers to territories that are claimed by SK as “disputed” rather than simply North Korea’s territory? -Found that cite yet to prove that I have made assertions, that I did not then cite, about any of the things you’ve invented and claimed I’ve said? > [@Commissar](#): > > You made one attempt to do so (citing a non-binding non-governmental manual of proposed codes of conduct) and then gave up. Again, saying patently false things when all someone has to do is cite what actually happened. Curiouser and curiouser. Anyways, just because this is kinda amusing: [I pointed out that you’d provided absolutely no support, at all, for your claims (you still haven’t, and that was about a week ago)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13210444&postcount=371) I was even kind enough to link you to the most comprehensive manual documenting current international customary law for maritime warfare. [You responded, naturally, by trying to change the subject, making up things about how I was using the Sam Remo Manual, dishonestly cherrypicking the description of the SRM, claiming it was published by the Red Cross when it was not, and then claiming that Customary International Law had no legal applicability.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13210842&postcount=372) Then [I pointed out the above.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13211263&postcount=373) Oddly enough, you were also educated on the fact that it wasn’t a set of “proposed guidelines”. Odd that you’d make that mistake again. Or perhaps not so odd. And so on, and so on, and so on. And you have yet to provide one single, solitary scrap of international law or international custom that says that shells falling in the open ocean is a valid casus belli. It’s almost like your argument is absolute nonsense that you cannot possibly support, so you have to change the subject, distort the facts, and do whatever you can to avoid providing proof for your most basic of claims, and you’ll fling dishonest analogies all day to the point where you’re likening crossing the street to raining artillery down upon the citizens of a sovereign nation. What a coincidence, eh? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/517 "2010-12-08T14:43:51Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > It seems to me that you may, perhaps, be unclear on the concept of “law” in general. Contrary to your apparent position, law is a human invention that derives from actual human sources. When invoking law, it helps to be actually able to point to a statute, treaty, or some other document, and proclaim, “Here is the law.” > > Instead, you appear to take the position that you, personally, can mandate what the law is with no reference to any written authority. I do not find this persuasive. You have, so far, utterly failed to reference anything approaching international law. You made one attempt to do so (citing a non-binding non-governmental manual of proposed codes of conduct) and then gave up. I’m still waiting for you to openly state which specific international laws you believe are applicable here, and why you believe that North Korea violated them. > > So far, you have gone out of your way to avoid providing any answers to these questions. Instead, you have given meaningless statements such as the following: > > “It’s very clear that you’ve never once cited international law or custom showing that NK had a valid casus belli…” > > Law doesn’t work that way. If I cross the street, it is unreasonable for you to run up to me and demand to know what legal authority I have for crossing the street. If you believe that the act was illegal, then state which law I violated, and I can then provide defenses if needed. > > “No, nations cannot simply engage in acts of war without a valid casus belli.” > > I need a cite to applicable international law. > > “And no, you still have no idea that international treaties are a subset of international law, not the other way around.” > > If you cannot find a treaty to support your position, feel free to look for other sources. But I do need to see an actual source, rather than hear you repeat unsupported statements ad nauseum. Let’s see that source. > > “The conditions under which a nation may engage in violence against another nation are quite clearly spelled out.” > > **Where? If it’s clearly spelled out, let’s see it.** Haven’t read the entire thread, so I may be missing something, however, it’s quite clear there are rules for when a country may or may not use force (\*\*FinnAgain \*\*has covered this already, I did read that). Source of Law: [UN Charter](http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml), [Wiki Explanation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter) Basically, war is illegal. You can only go to war in two situations: (1) if the UN authorizes it (they did not). (2) Self-Defense (I’m guessing the claim is NK attacked SK unprovoked). Duration/Scope of war doesn’t matter. Firing a bunch of missiles against another country is definitely an act of war that needs to be authorized or in self-defense (or at least perceived self-defense). \*\*FinnAgain \*\*is claiming there wasn’t a valid caus belli (basically a valid reason) to attack SK. Meaning there isn’t a legitimate claim for self-defense. However, NK’s actions would provide SK with a legitimate claim for acting in self defense. > [@](#): > > And so on and so forth. I’ll wait for your cites, but I won’t hold my breath. So far, you have dodged all my requests to support your allegations, all while ironically accusing me of doing just that. The problem is that you will find no support for what you claim in international law. **The few documents that actually exist and apply here, were you to read them, would quickly show that North Korea did nothing wrong here under the scenario it outlined**. I’m generally unsure of what exactly transpired, and more importantly, what led up to NK’s attack (I’m sure it’s been covered in this thread, I’ll go have a look), but you’d want to be clear that the attack was indeed unprovoked. Given the recent escalation of things between these countries, perceived self-defense (thinking military exercises are actually an imminent threat) might be credible here. Again, I really don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/518 "2010-12-08T16:01:07Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The current NK president is like George W Bush and Dick Cheney. He spent his whole youth dodging compulsory military service and has to prove how tough he is by rattling his sabre. > [@Monty](#): > > [Really, now?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Myung-bak#Early_life_and_education) Lee Myung-bak is the president of North Korea? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/519 "2010-12-08T16:38:56Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > it’s quite clear there are rules for when a country may or may not use force (\*\*FinnAgain \*\*has covered this already, I did read that). Awwwww, I’ve been trying to get him to provide proof for his claims without letting him try to find something else to talk about. Ah well. [I cited Article 51 already](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13220455&postcount=470) but Commissar didn’t catch it, so I figured it could slide as I pointed out, again, that he refused to provide any proof at all for his claim while demanding that people disprove it… while complaining about people who make claims and refuse to provide proof for them while demanding that people disprove them. > [@CoolHandCox](#): > > FinnAgain is claiming there wasn’t a valid caus belli (basically a valid reason) to attack SK. Technically, my claim is that Commissar has not provided a valid casus belli, which was his claim after all since he said that NK’s attack on SK was “justified” and “appropriate”. As that was his claim, it’s really not my responsibility to prove that there wasn’t a valid casus belli, but he’d rather shift the burden of proof because he’s got no argument, at all. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/520 "2010-12-08T17:06:39Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Lee Myung-bak is the president of North Korea? Oops. Thanks for pointing out my error. So, now, I have a question: does NK really have compulsory military service? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645.md?page=27)