The problem is when you start invading countries just because they’re fucked up, where do you draw the line?
So in order to rescue all the starving peasants in North Korea, we’re going to start a war where we slaughter the feckless North Korean army and smash its infrastructure.
I’m sure the millions of dead will be thankful for our sacrifices in their name.
I came in here to say exactly the same thing. I’m not sure if people realize how catastrophic an all out war on the Korean peninsula would be, but it would be epically bad. Literally millions would die if they went all out on each other. No doubt North Korea would fall, but even leaving aside the millions dead the clean up would take decades and the impact to the global economy would be extreme as well.
Hard as it is, the best thing to do is really to just wait for the inevitable crash of North Korea and hope that the humanitarian aid we are able to send will be enough. It’s sort of like watching a slowly unfolding air plane crash…all we can really do is wait, watch and send aid when it finally hits the ground…and hope there are survivors. The West/UN/US taking action would be the equivalent of trying to hurry the planes descent to the ground with a few air to air missiles in the hopes the crash will happen faster.
I don’t know why you would say that in one breath and then expound on the efficacy of the ROK forces. Who trained and equipped the ROK?
And 30,000 Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force of the US military is a formidable force. Certainly nothing to sniff at.
What difference would it have made? The Allies were already throwing everything they had at the Axis. Western publicity about the Holocaust would have been good for morale-and-propaganda purposes, but it would not have saved a single Jew or Gypsy or Jehovah’s Witness or homosexual or Social Democrat, etc.
If that means waiting until young Kim Jong-un passes from the scene, we’ll be waiting a while.
I’ve said it before: Both U.S. and SK forces should simply withdraw from the DMZ. After tearing down all the fences on the southern side. Send a message to NK: “We don’t even need to defend this border, because we know and you know that it would be suicide for you to cross it.” It saves money and tension, and the NK troops remaining along the DMZ will start to wonder what they’re doing there anyway.
You just don’t get it, do you?
Seoul is about 30 miles from the DMZ. Kim Jong-Un could push the button right now and Seoul would be decimated before we could do a damn thing about it.
The ROK military may be far more advanced and well-equipped in every way than the DPRK military, but that’s irrelevant to this issue. They don’t need anything fancy or high-tech to do the job. All they need is good old fashioned heavy artillery, and they’ve got it, locked, loaded, and ready to go. Sure we could blow up their batteries, no problem, but Seoul would already be gone.
Are you sure you’ve researched this issue? Because you simply do not sound at all knowledgeable about the North Korean situation. Most of what you say seems to be based on conjecture and not evidence.
Fortunately, invasion is not considered to be a useful action as far as resolving the North Korean situation at this point. I don’t know where we should draw the line as far as where in the world we should be taking some sort of action, but I’d say “the most fucked up country on Earth” certainly qualifies.
North Korea is already claiming the information is all faked. Oy. I think you’re right in that the report is more likely to have an effect on China. It never even occurred to me that NK would do anything in response. I’ve been hoping that it directly or indirectly causes China to change its tune.
China is the linchpin when it comes to resolving this whole mess. If China moves on the issue, then there is a chance that the people of North Korea can be helped. If they stay firm, then there’s little anybody can do.
But if the suggestion is we need to do something, invasion’s about the only thing left on the table. North Korea has been the target of extensive diplomatic and economic sanctions for decades and these don’t seem to be moving the country in the right direction.
So the only realistic options are invasion or accepting the ongoing existence of the Kim regime. I personally think invasion would be a bad idea. So to answer the OP’s question, I think this is not a situation where the West/UN should take action.
Yeah, 'cause we don’t care if the NK sends across it’s covert teams to murder or abduct SK citizens or blow up shit, like they have in the past, because…because…because it would be suicide for them to do that, or to sink SK warships…and stuff. You tell em BG, 'cause you obviously know a lot about this!
The Sunshine Policy ended after Lee Myung-Bak became President, and after North Korea, against the wishes of the international community and against its own promises, conducted a nuclear test. US pressure had nothing to do with it. US policy isn’t responsible for the situation now in North Korea…North Korea is. North Korea is choosing to conduct nuclear brinkmanship; it’s choosing to mismanage its economy; it’s choosing to deny its citizens basic human rights. I don’t know what the solution is to the problem that is North Korea. But I do know that you don’t get anywhere by acting as if the North Korean government are good actors.
This is off the subject, and I’m not saying I believe it, but there is, in fact, debate regarding the cause of the sinking. It’s off the subject because it only reinforces my point. If the DPRK is willing to do that, then that’s all the more reason American forces shouldn’t be there, in (a certain amount of) harm’s way, needlessly (if unintentionally) provoking the DPRK for no good reason.
So does mine.
Exactly. They’re paranoid enough to think they might be attacked. Best not to fuel their paranoia.
So “good” means “reinforcing the interventionist status quo, since [sarcasm on] Woodrow Wilson really did end all wars! [sarcasm off]” Would “good” not include something like this, written by a well-regarded and oft-published author, who just a week ago brought readers up to date on the situation? Or how about something from a very different place on the ideological spectrum, but similarly advocating for the US to leave Korea?
How so? Intervention leads to blowback, and yet people advocate for more intervention! That seems pretty ignorant to me.
All of it was during and after graduate school, actually. I don’t want to use my real name here, and linking to my articles (appearing on the site of a think tank, and then reprinted by news sites and agencies) would do that. I can link to those analysts who helped me to think outside the imperial box, though, and I did just that above.
Right, those 30,000 are superfluous. Removing them doesn’t make it an even context. Richard Thompson said it best, over twenty years ago.
I know how close Seoul is, and I know what the DPRK has pointed at it. Airstrikes and counter-battery fire can also cover that distance very quickly, as soon as the South detects the first certain sign of danger. You think the ROK isn’t prepared for this? You write that Seoul would be “decimated,” which means reduced by a tenth, and then later you write that Seoul would be gone. Which is it? Although, you may have an interesting perspective, if you’re in the ROK military or US forces in Korea, since you say “we could blow up their batteries…”
Yes. Have you looked at anything other than standard-issue Washington fear-mongering?
Indeed, they are not good actors at all, which is why Washington’s interference in things like the Sunshine Policy is particularly unhelpful.
The Sunshine Policy was a disaster, so if the US was opposed to it, good for the US. But the thing is, the US didn’t interfere in the Sunshine Policy. The Sunshine Policy didn’t get canceled because of anything the US did or didn’t do. It got canceled by continued provocations by N. Korea.
There is also debate over whether we actually landed on the moon.
“Decimated” only means “reduced by one tenth” in the historical context of the Roman army. Look it up. I’d recommend the OED, but I’m afraid you’d reject it as “imperialist” or something.
:rolleyes:
I simply don’t believe you have the qualifications you say you do or that you have done any actual research into the issue. The reasons for my belief are your postings in this thread.
“We” landed on the moon? I would certainly dispute anyone claiming that I landed on the moon. I don’t know whether or not you did. As for the sinking controversy, I don’t necessarily agree with the skeptics, but they look more credible than, say, the fake-moon-landing conspiracy adherents. Either way, it doesn’t matter.
I know it got corrupted, and I don’t like that. Language should change to make more sense, not less. If the OED bowed to that, it’s a pity.
To say the only realistic options are invasion or accepting the status quo is creating a false dichotomy. There is a viable third option, which is getting China to stop supporting and protecting the Kim regime, and that includes stopping with the persecution of North Korean refugees. This won’t be easy and the positive results will likely take some time to develop, but this seems to be the best choice at the moment. Without China aiding and abetting them, the regime will topple. (Eventually.)
An eye-roll isn’t a rebuttal. Right now I feel like one of the “Little Englanders” who opposed Britain’s expansionist, interventionist, imperial role in the world, and were widely treated as crackpots, only to be proved correct, again and again. Why is it fine for the US to put bases all around the world, when US citizens wouldn’t allow a foreign military base on US soil? Why should the US have border conflicts with countries in Asia, among other places?
We’re coming up on the centenary of the First World War’s first shots. Let’s (all of us, as a species) not make those same mistakes again.