Starting the second Korean war?

[malcolmxwarrior]

Geez. What started out as a civil war sure has gotten bad.

Starting the Second Korean War?
Restraint is almost certainly the better part of valor

Doug Bandow | February 26, 2009

Edited by prewitt81: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 4.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety. Link to it, instead, if you wish to discuss an article, etc.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I'll preface this by saying I served in Korea for 3 1/2 years, having left in late 2007, and am pretty familiar with the situation there.

Really, things haven't gotten so bad. They are arguably better, and more stable, than they have ever been (that doesn't make it a good situation, but it used to be far worse). Consider that in the 1970's and 80's both countries were actively trying to assassinate each other's leaders, North Korea was blowing up jet liners and murdering American military officers and kidnapping Japanese schoolgirls, and both sides were always a hair away from all out war. Right now, in spite of all the missile business, things are still relatively quiet.

A few points about this article:
- South Korea is more than capable of defending itself. In fact, the U.S. is still planning on turning over full operational control in the next couple of years, and will be relegated to more of a support role. The U.S. would likely provide South Korea with some of the things it lacks (stronger air power, intelligence gathering, naval strength), but the ground war would probably be primarily South Korean. The U.S. isn't going to withdraw all 29,000 Soldiers, but the makeup of those Soldiers has already changed drastically (far fewer combat troops).

- The U.S. could not seriously contemplate attacking North Korea with South Korea's support. 15-20 years ago, maybe. Now? No way. And South Korea has little to gain and everything to lose from that kind of move. Attacking North Korea is not a realistic option, even in a limited fashion.

- I have no idea who would ever claim that "Kim would do nothing" if attacked, so I'm not sure what the author is arguing against there.

- North Korea has never really been a U.S. issue, except that it is an issue of two of our strongest allies, Japan and South Korea. The U.S. has just been in the position to lead since neither Japan nor South Korea have been particularly assertive, politically, in the past few decades. Either way, though, I would certainly hope we'd continue to support our allies.

- I agree overall that restraint is the way to go. Like it or not, North Korea is, basically, able to hold South Korea hostage. It can't win a war, but it can kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in the process of losing. That's enough reason to not attack them, as distasteful as it may be.

 

[Oliver]

Actually, North Korea just nuked South Korea, the US and Japan. Oh wait, decent news sources say they simply launched a harmless sattelite into orbit.

 

[DC]

Actually, North Korea just nuked South Korea, the US and Japan. Oh wait, decent news sources say they simply launched a harmless sattelite into orbit.

That harmless sattelite killed propably alot people

 

[Oliver]

That harmless sattelite killed propably alot people

I will fix the link first ... :

 

[Oliver]

That harmless sattelite killed propably alot people

I see:

The lack of trade to the UN-sanctioned state has led to the vast poverty-stricken regions in N. Korea, resulting in almost NZD$8.5 million of aid to various organizations that assist in the development of farming regions and humanitarian assistance.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_North_Korea

 

[Oliver]

LOL? :

CNN - Breaking News: North Korea's satellite did not make it to orbit, the North American Aerospace Defense Command says.

 

[geni]

LOL? :

CNN - Breaking News: North Korea's satellite did not make it to orbit, the North American Aerospace Defense Command says.

Hardly a suprise the last one didn't make it either. The further NK gets from the original scud design the more problems they have.

 

[WildCat]

Is this the "post a random article from Reason but don't comment on it" thread?

I'll just link to one so as not to violate the rules here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10019

Do you have any thoughts of your own malcomxwarrior? Or is copy/paste the limit of your intellectual prowess, excepting the occasional anti-semitic rant?

 

[Childlike Empress]

LOL? :

CNN - Breaking News: North Korea's satellite did not make it to orbit, the North American Aerospace Defense Command says.

I'm subscribed to the german language newsfeed of RIA Novosti. This morning (8am UTC) they sent me the headline and link to an article saying the russian foreign ministry had confirmed the successful launch of the satellite. When I clicked on it about two hours later, the article had disappeared from the website. During the day, they had articles about the NORAD comments, about a phone call between Lawrow and Clinton on the issue, about how they closely monitored the whole flight of the missile, and about a refusal of Roskosmos and the "space part" of the military to comment.

Little bit strange.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Diplomacy can resolve the N. Korea problem. If America pulls all of its troops out of Korea and start sitting down at the table discussing solutions with china and S. Korea and N. Korea, The endgame could be one Korea.

You're not making much sense. A few posts earlier, you claimed the issue "is a civil war that should be settled between the two." Now you're saying it should involve the U.S., China, south Korea and north Korea. Which is it?

What makes you think pulling U.S. troops out of South Korea is a precondition to talks?

And are you not familiar with the South Korean sunshine policy? The Six Party Talks? All efforts to do exactly what you said. And all have failed.

It's the governments that are in dispute. That is what the started the conflict. The north's government was one way and the souths was another way.

And in the 60 years since then, the governments have become even less and less alike. One government moved from a dictatorship to an open, thriving democracy and the other moved deeper and deeper into self-imposed isolation run by a bizzaro-world dictatorial dynasty.

At this point, it isn't just the governments that are in dispute. South Korean citizens are now affluent, opened up to the world, and used to first-world standards. They are one of the most wired countries in the world, Internet savvy, have cell phones and cars. North Koreans have little exposure to the outside world and are culturally stuck in a perpetual 1965. Most will have never used the Internet. Very few could afford a cell phone even if they were allowed to have one.

There is also the simple fact that any type of "one Korea" would likely have a huge adverse economic impact on the South, likely for a couple of decades at least. South Koreans have little reason, aside from affection, to want unification.

 

[malcolmxwarrior]

You're not making much sense. A few posts earlier, you claimed the issue "is a civil war that should be settled between the two." Now you're saying it should involve the U.S., China, south Korea and north Korea. Which is it?

What makes you think pulling U.S. troops out of South Korea is a precondition to talks?

And are you not familiar with the South Korean sunshine policy? The Six Party Talks? All efforts to do exactly what you said. And all have failed.



And in the 60 years since then, the governments have become even less and less alike. One government moved from a dictatorship to an open, thriving democracy and the other moved deeper and deeper into self-imposed isolation run by a bizzaro-world dictatorial dynasty.

At this point, it isn't just the governments that are in dispute. South Korean citizens are now affluent, opened up to the world, and used to first-world standards. They are one of the most wired countries in the world, Internet savvy, have cell phones and cars. North Koreans have little exposure to the outside world and are culturally stuck in a perpetual 1965. Most will have never used the Internet. Very few could afford a cell phone even if they were allowed to have one.

There is also the simple fact that any type of "one Korea" would likely have a huge adverse economic impact on the South, likely for a couple of decades at least. South Koreans have little reason, aside from affection, to want unification.

What should/can be done?

I mean if you attack them and bow them to kingdom come, that is what they want. They want a marshall plan do they not? But I'm an anti-war guy so I don't think War will do any good except kill a bunch of people that haven't invaded anybody since 1950.

What to do.

One korea seems like the only way. It was one korea since the 8th century right?

 

[Tailgater]

What should/can be done?

I mean if you attack them and bow them to kingdom come, that is what they want. They want a marshall plan do they not? But I'm an anti-war guy so I don't think War will do any good except kill a bunch of people that haven't invaded anybody since 1950.

What to do.

One korea seems like the only way. It was one korea since the 8th century right?

How about doing nothing.

 

[geni]

How about doing nothing.

Risky. Sooner or later Kim jong il will die. This may cause instability. It would be foolish to not prepare for a senario in which a nuclear power becomes unstable.

 

[Ziggurat]

One korea seems like the only way. It was one korea since the 8th century right?

You think South Korea is actually interested in reunification? Hell no. They're interested in improved relations, they'd like the dictatorship to go and for there to be real access to the north, but they're not going to want reunification. Why? Because it would simply cost far too much money. The reunification of Germany placed major financial burdens on West Germany because East Germany was much poorer, and under a unified government the disparities had to be smoothed out. But East Germany was rich compared to North Korea. The economic costs of reunification to South Korea would be staggering, and it would create a rather significant decrease in the standard of living for South Koreans. Even if the typical South Korean hasn't thought that far ahead, I can guarantee you that enough of the politicians have, and they know that no party would survive having produced that fiasco. So they won't do it, even if offered the opportunity. Improved relations? Yes. Deeper economic ties? Definitely. Increased aid? They could go for that. But reunification isn't happening. South Korea has risen too high, and North Korea has sunk too low, for the South Koreans to want it. If North Korea opens up, then after a decade or two of rapid economic growth to narrow the gap, the possibility might arise, but not now, and not anytime soon.

 

[dudalb]

The real danger is if the situation in NK reaches the point of total collapse, and Kim, seeing he going to go undeer anyway, decides "What The Hell" and launches an attack on SOuth Korea.

 

[geni]

The real danger is if the situation in NK reaches the point of total collapse, and Kim, seeing he going to go undeer anyway, decides "What The Hell" and launches an attack on SOuth Korea.

Which is why a significant amount effort is quietly going towards trying to prevent that kind of collapse.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

What should/can be done?

I mean if you attack them and bow them to kingdom come, that is what they want.

No, that's not what they want. Kim Jong Il does not want regime change, and it has been pretty clear that any major war would have that as an objective of the U.S./South Korean side.

They want a marshall plan do they not?

No. They want money to use at their discretion, not a U.S. imposed plan, or destruction of their already paltry infrastructure. If they wanted to be destroyed, they could have done it a long time ago.

One korea seems like the only way.

Way to do what? "One Korea" by itself means nothing. If it is one Korea under a free, democratically elected government, then sure, nobody doubts that would be a great thing. But that's kinda sorta the entire point: one side is that, and one side isn't. And the side that isn't has absolutely no intention of allowing itself to become free, or democratic, or of becoming "one Korea" under such a system.

One democratic free Korea would be great. "One Korea" under Kim Jong Il would be a disaster.

It was one korea since the 8th century right?

And Istanbul was Constantinople (for a thousand years). Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople. Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks.

 

[dudalb]

And Istanbul was Constantinople (for a thousand years). Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople. Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks.

I love that song.

 

[dudalb]

So now malcolmxwarrior is siding with one of the world's looniest dictators. This just keeps getting better and better.