So the solution is to provide as much food and fuel aid to North Korea, no matter what nuclear weapons developments, tests, and threats it makes along with its conventional weapons provocations? That plan was tried by South Korea in the early 2000s and did not yield any meaningful results that were actually worth a damn. Tolerated blackmail is not a stable or very wise policy, as much as a large portion of South Korean young people seem to wish it were.
I agree in the same way I agree with Communism - in theory.
But using a stick rather than carrot for a regime under as much pressure as NK’s doesn’t seem a wise man’s gambit to me.
Just look at how unstable that region could potentially become: China - Japan; China - Taiwan; China - Russia; North K - South K; Burma… Iran… The risk Vs reward issue is what I’m concerned with. That the US’ vision isn’t blurred by their fear that they could lose control of the East entirely due to China’s rise and thusly are looking to jump at any chance to gain a firmer foothold in the region without due prescience.
Yanks historically aren’t that flash at dealing with the ‘Red scurge’. If it wasn’t for the economic collapse of the USSR, who knows if we’d still be here or this forum even exist! And I don’t see China’s supply of bowl-of-rice-per-diem factory workers or hunger for plasma TVs abating any time soon.
Modern-day Communist China has been or is on bad terms with pretty well all of its neighbours who are not its client-states.
Tibet - invaded, declared part of China. Its leader is in perpetual exile.
India - history of territorial disputes and border clashes, moist famously the sino-indian war in the '60s.
Vietnam - same; border war with China in the late '70s.
Korea - involvement in the Korean war; N. Korea a client-state.
Russia - border tensions nearly resulted in nuclear exchange in the 60s - eased with the fall of the Soviet Union.
Taiwan - perpetual state of military tension, as China claims it is the rightful owner of Taiwan and vice versa.
Phillipines - tensions over Spratly islands ownership on the increase
It is true that Korea was, since the 16th century, more likely to be a victim of Japanese imperialism than Chinese; but since WW2, China is the natural hegemon in SE Asia, and it is very predictable that a re-united Korea would find itself in conflict with it if recent history is any guide.
You’re not thinking this through, my friend. Even if we postulate that the South fired into Northern waters with no intention of hitting Northern targets, it is still a provocative act of aggression.
If you’re having difficulty seeing this, switch the parties around. Let’s say that a North Korean warship approaches the US, stopping just outside its territorial waters off the coast of California. The US, worried, lets the North Korean government know that any act of aggression against US people or territory will be met with immediate retribution. The warship ignores this warning and fires a salvo into US waters, the shells exploding just off the shore of Los Angeles. The US armed forces fire back, striking the warship. Would you say that the US was an aggressor acting without provocation?
As pointed out before, what you call a “provocative act of agression” was in reality the standard procedure in the area.
Even if one would grant that the Korea case was a provocation, (still a very silly thing to say when looking at past actions) even worse incidents and provocations where not dealt with immediate retribution by the USA during the October missile crisis, point being that avoiding nuclear war was the responsible thing to do.
The North Korean government is irresponsible in the extreme.
I think this is a perfect opportunity for President Obama to demonstrate his wise new realpolitik-the USA should sit back and do nothing-and make it clear to China that we will NOT be suckered into giving more money to N Korea-if they love them so much, they can pony up the cash.
Really, NK can do NOTHING without China’s tacit approval-for once, let’s let THEM figure out what to do.
In any case, it is NONE of our bisiness.
There is exactly zero evidence that the ROK fired into or even towards DPRK waters. Also, the DPRK is not a surrogate. They are, quite simply, a rogue state and consistently declare any military exercises by the ROK to be provocative.
That’s a false analogy. The Caribbean Crisis was a high-stakes game of chicken between two nuclear powers - one in which the USSR took the higher road, thus saving the world from destruction.
We do not have that here. What we have is two non-nuclear nations, technically still at war decades after most hostilities ended, and a tense border dividing the two. These are two nations sitting on a powder-keg; clearly, the best thing for both to do is to tread lightly and avoid antagonizing each other. Instead, the South decides it would be a splendid idea to lob artillery shells over the border and into the general vicinity of Northern targets. If that’s not actionable provocation, I’m not sure what is.
As North Korea is already capable of making nuclear bombs it is a proper analogy, even better when one takes into account China. You are just grasping at straws.
So no, it was not a provocation from the south as you like to insist. The North has changed arbitrarily what they would consider a provocation.
Edited to add: “What we have is two non-nuclear nations”. ???!?! I’m afraid I have to agree with others in this thread that you are really ignorant of past and recent history.
Like Sarah Palin said on Beck yesterday, America has to back its’ North Korean ally because of our treaty with it. Live and learn.
What about us folk who don’t much care who started it, as long as North Korea loses?
I, for one, believe that the Western hysteria over North Korea’s alleged nuclear capability is overblown. They may be far along to get a controlled chain reaction going, but I doubt they’re anywhere near having a deployable nuclear arsenal.
If we assume otherwise, it would actually weaken your argument. Provoking a nuclear power is not just aggressive - it’s downright stupid.
While I respect Al Jazeera, I doubt they have a magic eight-ball, either. Like the BBC, they are guessing about what happened. You’re making the same mistake as most posters here: choosing a source, proclaiming that the source knows the truth, and then treating the assertion as fact. While your choice of sources is better, your mental laziness is just as blatant. No, we still don’t know what happened. I doubt that we ever will, frankly.
I think I’ve figured it out. Commissar is Sarah Palin.
:rolleyes:
“They may be far along to get a controlled chain reaction going”
Sorry, but even the Federation of American Scientists agrees that the evidence is overwhelming that North Korea already detonated a Nuclear Bomb.
That was not my argument but yours, pay attention on what you write then, the analogy came from you.
My point is that the North is confident on changing the rules of engagement and become more recklessly aggressive thanks to the fact that they have nuclear weapons, unfortunately (or fortunately if you are South Korean) The US and other nations are also there or close by with nukes.
Nope, you are just blabbering there. You demonstrate real laziness when you are not capable of finding evidence (both present and from history to support your sorry points)
That is not my only source, and I also use logic. Even the Chinese have come to call on both sides to restrain their responses, not to call on the “provocation from the south” if the south had been at fault I would expect the Chinese to come hard on South Korea for this provocation, instead they declared that “We regret the casualties and property losses, and are concerned about the situation”
That is **not **what the Chinese would say if there was any evidence that the South was the aggressor.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/207974/china-regrets-shelling-casualties
The US Provoking NK is a little like poking a caged skunk, sure he can easily make a big stink, but the US could just as easily smash the cage, skunk and all.
And after that we could use nuclear weapons.
Exactly. And most of that is well within range of NK artillery. A full out war with NK is likely to be devastating to S. Korea, both from a loss-of-life and an economic point of view.
It might be a good idea in the long run for S. Korea to incentivize economic development further South, but right now the US’s options are limited when it comes to direct confrontation with N. Korea.
(I’m just clarifying, I don’t think your post was disagreeing with me).
No worries, BrightNShiny, I see your post as an addendum. By the way, the South Korean government has attempted to move some essential services in Seoul further south; however, the population is not going for that as they much prefer Seoul to be the essential center of the country.
Even when perfectly accurate, direct personal insults are not permitted in this forum.
Given that the South Korean military has access to GPS satellites, and uses American style targeting computers for ballistics and trajectory calculations, the odds of the ROK’s firing into North Korea are very slim. They are well aware of the hysterical reactions that the Norks are prone too, and aren’t really all the interested in fighting The Korean War Part 2 : Die Harder.
Proper analogy: I am at a firing range, zeroing my rifle. One of my rounds misses my target, and hits the ground near my range neighbors lane. He turns and shoots me in the leg, and decries to the rangemaster and the police that I was threatening him.
also: The ROK Defense Minister has resigned.