North Korea fires artillery on the South

[DC]

Not necessarily. A response could be an attack of a specific government target. This carries risks, as the North is bound to respond. However, it is much better than an all out war, in which the North may try to destroy Seoul.

The bottom line is that there is not much we can do. This is why North Korea getting nukes was such a big deal.

when i say war, i mean against the NK regime, not the people of NK.

and clearly it was not a big enough deal, while they actually were building and testing nukes, politicans were fully busy making up lies for the Iraq invasion. They got liberated while the people NK where and still are starving because of their regime.

It seems NK needs huge oil fields, then an invasion will be an option..

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's just too risky given that they are a nuclear power.

This is the reason why nuclear weapons are so dangerous, because they make rogue regimes untouchable.

 

[Doctor Evil]

when i say war, i mean against the NK regime, not the people of NK.

Well, as it happens, the regime controls the nukes, not the people. So for all your good intentions the distinction would not matter. If the regime feels it is going to fall it will probably decide to fall with a bang.

and clearly it was not a big enough deal, while they actually were building and testing nukes, politicans were fully busy making up lies for the Iraq invasion. They got liberated while the people NK where and still are starving because of their regime.

It seems NK needs huge oil fields, then an invasion will be an option..

Actually, your description does not correspond to the events. It was a big deal at the time. But NK had some diplomatic support from the Chinese which made it very difficult to achieve much.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's just too risky given that they are a nuclear power.

How many actual bombs do they have? Enough to start a war, but not end it?

This is the reason why nuclear weapons are so dangerous, because they make rogue regimes untouchable.

"Nuclear bombs don't kill people, the over-pressure, heat and radiation kill people."

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Good theory:

Mark Fitzpatrick, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said recent incidents such as the sinking of the Cheonan and the artillery firing at Yeonpyeong island were unlikely to be rogue actions by the North Korean military. Rather, he said, they would be portrayed by North Korea as victories and seen by Kim Jong-il as a way of bolstering the standing of his young son.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10130413

 

[NWO Sentryman]

How long before Obama loses patience and sends B-52s for Rolling Thunder II?

 

[Doctor Evil]

How many actual bombs do they have? Enough to start a war, but not end it?

No one knows. A scant few, probably.

They can not use these to win a war, but they do not have the delivery system to hurt far away nations anyway. (US or Europe.) The nukes are to keep the regime in place, by taking the people of South Korea (and possibly Japan) hostages.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They can not use these to win a war, but they do not have the delivery system to hurt far away nations anyway.

Not true. They could put one in a cargo container and have it delivered to the US. Long Beach would be grumpy if that happened, I think.

 

[MRC_Hans]

NK is in artillery range of Seoul. What they did today is a small scale demonstration of what they could do quite easily to a city of millions, irrespective of any nuclear capacity.

But of course, shelling a big city would provide all the excuses anybody might need to invade them.

Hans

 

[Wildy]

How long before Obama loses patience and sends B-52s for Rolling Thunder II?

I don't think Vietnam would appreciate being bombed for no reason.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I don't think Vietnam would appreciate being bombed for no reason.

I know, i know, but it's Best Korea that is drawing the ire of Evil!Imperialist!USA

 

[excaza]

The world looks to China for leadership.

It seems to me like China's best interest is to (at worst) maintain neutrailty, or (at best) sever itself from NK completely. As a country rapidly industrializing and becoming increasingly interested in foreign money, there's no way they'd take NK's side in whatever conflict arises, nobody would invest in them after that.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Good theory:

Mark Fitzpatrick, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said recent incidents such as the sinking of the Cheonan and the artillery firing at Yeonpyeong island were unlikely to be rogue actions by the North Korean military. Rather, he said, they would be portrayed by North Korea as victories and seen by Kim Jong-il as a way of bolstering the standing of his young son.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10130413

That's about right. The other thing to keep in mind is that the Lee administration in south Korea right now is very conservative. Historically, north Korea does not like conservative politicians in south Korea because they tend to be much stricter on them than their left-wing counterparts. So they have no problem staging incidents like this to make the south Korean government look bad -- which it does, because there isn't much the south Korean government can do about it.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

One of the most surprising things we encountered was the very strong desire for reunification. I thought it a bit naive (effect of propaganda by the SK government?) but we probably talked to someone about it almost every day. So if that sentiment is real, then getting the Chinese to get NK to the negotiating table would be a great move.

In my experience, it's real, sort-of. It's real conceptually, but not really real. They say they want reunification, they probably believe it, but it's like something far-off in the future in some hypothetical situation where north Korea isn't a basket case, and the two countries can join together peacefully with few difficulties.

Since an actual reunification with present conditions would likely cause huge economic and other headaches for the south, they're not real eager to see it happen any time soon, with things the way they are.

That said, there are some very naive people in Korea (a minority, but a loud and politically active one) that think north Korea really isn't that bad, and it's all a U.S.-imperialistic conspiracy to stop Koreans from being unified, and if they just visit Pyongyang and show respect to the statue of Kim Il Sung, the north Koreans will embrace them as brothers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

when i say war, i mean against the NK regime, not the people of NK.

Remind me of a few examples where a war was successfully waged against the government of a country and not against the population of that country.

Dave

 

[timhau]

when i say war, i mean against the NK regime, not the people of NK.

Oh, why didn't you say so? I bet that makes all the difference going in.

 

[DC]

Remind me of a few examples where a war was successfully waged against the government of a country and not against the population of that country.

Dave

Best example coming to mind is Afghanistan.

 

[DC]

Oh, why didn't you say so? I bet that makes all the difference going in.

and what do you think should be done? wait and drinking tee?

 

[excaza]

Best example coming to mind is Afghanistan.

Did they even have a military?

 

[Puppycow]

Seems that many of South Korea's young people have a very naive view of North Korea (or a very cynical view of their own government). I wonder if this will change any minds or if they will think that this is "another inside job." It's a bit alarming how many South Koreans, young people in particular, don't believe that North Korea was behind the sinking of the Cheonan.

Manga Comic Wielded by South Korea Against Skeptics About North

Only 39 percent of the respondents in their 20s believed North Korea sank the Cheonan, compared with 57 percent of all respondents, according to the telephone poll of people aged 19 or older conducted on Sept. 13.