Ummm . . . are you talking about Korea or Russia?
I’m well aware of this nostalgic-tined backlash–typically found among impoverished pensioners–but chalk it up to the “grass is greener” syndrome. Corruption and griding poverty were indeed severe under communist rule, and though today’s mafia influence is pervasive, the excesses committed by former Soviet state security organs in years past have no equal today.
Back to the OP, the situation in NK is hopeless on both diplomatic and military fronts. Kim will never surrender his nukes, knowing that the larger his nuclear arsenal and the more compelling his “crazy man” reputation, the more his international leverage. Any coup would likely give rise to a military leader even more repressive. Nukes are NK’s only playing card. It’s also likely China is playing the “North Korea” card to its own strategic advantage.
How?
would that be like, the peninusular equivalent of Sharon’s gaza gambit?
Originally Posted by Ponder Stibbons
What if the U.S. were to unilaterally simply pull out of South Korea? Confer first with China in secret to get assurances that they would not interfere militarily, then just pull out. Leave the Koreas to their own devices.
I think actually that is our best course-with us out of the wayk South and North CKorea will unite (cfvietnam) whether uinder Nkorean doinance or jot–who cares–in the long run Hiltn will be building a real Pyongyanbg (cf, Hanoi) Hilton.
So the idea would be to allow South Koreans to be thrown into jail, forever, starved and tortured? My that idea is certainly (what’s the word?) remarkable.
The United Nations guarantees the independence of South Korea. Should the US not provide the force to make this guarantee valid, the the UN becomes even more of a paper tiger.
If the US turns it back on its friends in South Korea, allows them to be enslaved, what country in the world would value our word? What dictator would be deterred by it? Instead we would be forced to fight each and every time our interests were threatened.
I am sure this idea has much to recommend it, perhaps Ponder Stibbons would like to expand upon it?
They’ve been doing this for a while. North Korea, in China’s hands, is sort of like a rapid dog on a five-foot pole. They haul it around their neighbors and politely suggest they toss the dog a bone. After all, if the dog isn’t fed, it might “accidentally” go wild and hurt someone.
The Chinese have been using this tactic since the Sovs fell apart. Howeverit hasn’t worked out. They wanted the U.S. to try and deal with the situation - and buy North Korea off. We refused to be the sole party. The Chinese expected we would fold, but we didn’t. That left them holding the weak end of the leash.
The South would win in a war. The South has twice the population and an economy about 30x bigger. The North Koreans are a bunch of starving soldiers who can barely afford to buy fuel for their tanks.
I wouldn’t support pulling out on humanitarian grounds though. The South is a liberal democracy with a respectable human rights record and a strong economy. The North is the most oppressive and one of the most poor countries on earth. Then again I think many South Koreans want the US to pull out.
Are you certain of that? Because what I hear is that the military might actually be pressing on for economic reforms. Since the North Korean military, like the Chinese, own a large number of factories and industries, they would profit from economic reforms.
And if they think that would make them safer, they’re probably right.
From what I see around me, it’s mostly the younger South Koreans who want the US to pull out. The older generation is a bit more aware of the menace that North Korea is to them.
Of course it’s a menace. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. troop presence helps matters any.
I’m not certain that they’re actually taking a rational assessment of risk versus safety. From what I’ve heard, South Koreans today have an extremely nationalistic view of things. There appears to be a sense that North Korea won’t really hurt them, because they’re “brothers.” They don’t seem to understand just who they’re dealing with. Indeed, several South Korean national leaders have gotten seriously burned by NK, but they keep a blindly optimistic line. North Korea will invade the South if they so choose whether or not the U.S has anyting to do with it. We’re just there as a guarrantor of their sovereignty.
I disagree with your assessment, Brain, but they don’t appear to be making a rational judgement at all.
North Korea won’t really hurt them because Kim knows full well he can no more afford to win such a war than he can afford to lose it and, in any case, there is no way he could win it. The presence of U.S. troops just gives him something to use in his propaganda.
Well, not from the North’s view. OTOH, as the South does not currently have the ability to defend itself from the North, it really does help matters quite a lot from the South’s view.
Nobody in this thread has yet contradicted the common wisdom that NK is an economic basket case. Also has less than half SK’s population – and NK’s people are scrawny and undernourished. If the two, just by themselves, went head-to-head, how could NK possibly win? Or even survive a prolonged stalemate war without collapsing under the strain?
I confess that I am puzzled by the arithmatic that posits a plurality opposed in SK to our presence, (presumably a majority opposed in NK to us as well), I’m sure that the majority of our TROOPS oppose our presence–
\why the fuck are we there, again??
Of what positive outcome are we enhancing the likelihood?
This is true, but their military machine is fierce and would cause incalculable damage, probably affecting the global economy. South Korea can almost certainly win on its own, but we have left certain guarrantees to ensure they won’t. NK has a large army and a large core of it is well-trained and well fed. It;s munitions are out of date, but they can probably use them efficiently. At a minimum, they would kill thousands upon thousands if they attacked.
There is a chance (although I agree its unlikely), that NK might deiced to risk everything on a last-ditch onslight if its economy gets too bad. That would buy it at least another 50 years of mismanagement if it won. It would also get rid of a persistent thorn in China’s side. It might strengthen or weaken NK’s hand against China; that’s hard to estimate.
Anyway, the American troops are a warning against China that we won’t tolerate any interference in NK attacks SK. Their purpose is simply to make sure NK (presumably with complicit Chinese backing) can’t invade SK without at least considering the fact that we’re watching them all the time. They attack, we respond.
But the rationale for them being there is as follows: If NK attacks SK, we have a moral and legal duty to assist them. If NK doesn’t attack SK, our troops are in no danger, and add to our diplomatic hand. Ipso facto, we win under all scenarios. That’s the logic of those who set up the deal (although initially they feared Russia, rather than China, would be the backing party). Safety is not what soldiers sign up for.
I don’t think NK can even win a war with SK without straining their system to the point of collapse.
We’re there because SK’s neighbor happens to be the last Stalinist regime on earth and is run by a total nutjob with access to chem/bio weapons and possibly nukes. We’re there because South Korea is an ally. We’re there because saying that we don’t need to back up South Korea in a war because they’d eventually defeat the North is a bit like saying that we don’t need to fight wildfires in Texas and Oklahoma because they’ll eventually burn themselves out on their own. While both statements are technically true, they neglect the fact that a lot of damage and loss of life will occur if we just step back and allow events to take their natural course.
Hmm. First time I’ve heard of this. According to military defectors’ testimony, the majority of the top brass were strong hawks. According to the same testimony, officers trained in Russian academies returned to NK and tried to institute change. In 1992, they were all purged (probably shot or sent to death camps). Remember that as isolated and unfamiliar with western customs and philosophies as Kim Jong Il is, his military cadre is even more so. Many NK field officers have been fighting the bad fight for over fifty years without ever having seen a democratic/capitalist country. Even without defector records, I have trouble imagining them being open to economic reform, especially when they consider what happened to East German officials–Erich Honecker in particular–after peaceful reunification.