Even though South Korea (with our help) could quickly win a war with North Korea that would unify the country and lead to prosperity on a massive scale, it is very unlikely that our side will start a war there. The fear that North Korea would explode a nuclear weapon is not the reason we won’t risk war. Even prior to their attainment of a nuclear weapon, we recognized that the South Korean capital, Seoul, is within artillery range of the DMZ, and would come under devastating attack at the outset of hostilities. For this reason, South Korea would have to want to go war before we would impose war on them. Their civilian losses would be too high for us to make that decision for them. Fear of a nuclear explosion exacerbates this situation, but it doesn’t change it.
Still, North Korea is making provocative statements on a daily basis that are growing harder to shrug off. I can’t think of another country in the world that is situated in a way that would allow them to get away with threatening to fire missiles at our country and our allies.
I think it is time for China to show some leadership here. They need to sit down with their psychotic puppet regime and tell them to dial back the rhetoric. And, if they can no longer control them, perhaps the regime doesn’t need to exist anymore. From a financial point of view, it’s hard to see how North Korea is preferable to a united Korea organized on southern principles.
North Korea is also promoting tourism (although not from the US) for this summer.
I would not buy into the “psychotic puppet” meme. North Korean leaders are using this “crisis” to unify public demonstrations of support around their new pampered obese kid leader. And they are taking advantage of crises elsewhere to try to pressure an end agreement to the Korean War that advantages their regime. There is nothing psychotic at all about that.
China uses North Korea as a buffer with the US sphere of influence and likely wants to keep the regime in place–at least until the parts of China adjacent to North Korea are as economically prosperous as South Korea. Don’t expect China to think strategically about North Korea the same way that the US would.
So far it has been drama and no actual provocative acts. No doubt China quietly has reminded North Korea that a provocative act would be suicidal. No need for China to state that publicly and panic the North Korean leadership into actually doing something stupid.
If the regime succeeds in getting the public behind it if only temporarily, it might be ready to deal.
This is serious, Tarheel. A nuclear-armed country can’t publicly threaten to attack us and think we will just assume they are full of shit. China needs to talk to them.
But as you’ve said, we’re not going to take the first action. Maybe if Cheney were in charge and the Iraq war hadn’t been a disaster, but not now.
How do you know that China has not already talked to them? How do you think China would play it to China’s advantage?
It is serious, but North Korea is not psychotic any more than Louis Goehmert is. It is a strategy that has worked tolerably for them in the past. And it has the effect of forcing domestic unity (no one wants to be a traitor in wartime).
The key issue is whether there is domestic unity behind the leadership.
On reflection, there is a bit of an air of a training exercise for young Kim in this whole set of events.
Okay. Let me rephrase it.
China needs to get Pyongyang to shut the fuck up.
A few times ago (I think before Jong-il died) I remember reading that the US had actually asked Russia to help reign them in and Russian’s response was essentially “They’re crazy, we have no leverage over them.”
I think China is in the same situation. They have to support DPRK, otherwise they get a wave of refugees pouring over their borders. By the same token I find your talk of prosperity way to glib. In addition to the huge amounts of economic potential (including lives) that would be lost in an artillery barrage, look at the German example for the economic issues that reunification can pose. And of course GDR was light-years closer to FRG than DRPK is to ROK. How much of an economic hit would the south taken even absent war losses by having to support a northern population heavily brainwashed, malnourished and without economically viable skills?
How do you know that China is not behind this? China has been very aggressive in pushing for all other Naval forces to get out of the Western Pacific. By using their Korean puppet, they put pressure on the USA without direct confrontation. If they decide to back down, they will do it in the guise of “persuading” North Korea to be less belligerent which casts China as the reasonable superpower. Either way, China flexes their global muscles. It’s win-win for them.
The young ‘un needs to show his mettle before anything resembling progress is to be made. The Eric Clapton fan has hinted at economic reforms that might actually help his countrymen. The photos of the “war room” are hilarious. The leader wants to be seen looking at something important while the uniformed bystanders have the disinterested look of an overstaffed road crew.
Offer a Disney amusement park for the leader.
It continues to stun me just how subconsciously pro-war this country has become. It shouldn’t given the decades of propoganda, both subtle and overt, that we’ve been subject to.
Look at this assessment of the situation:
Even though South Korea (with our help) could quickly win a war with North Korea that would unify the country and lead to prosperity on a massive scale, it is very unlikely that our side will start a war there. The fear that North Korea would explode a nuclear weapon is not the reason we won’t risk war. Even prior to their attainment of a nuclear weapon, we recognized that the South Korean capital, Seoul, is within artillery range of the DMZ, and would come under devastating attack at the outset of hostilities. For this reason, South Korea would have to want to go war before we would impose war on them. Their civilian losses would be too high for us to make that decision for them. Fear of a nuclear explosion exacerbates this situation, but it doesn’t change it.
Not a single whisper of concern for North Korean civilians. Well, except for what is implied in that bold justification for pre-emptive war up front: “…could quickly win a war … that would … lead to prosperity on a massive scale.” Note that there is some concerns for South Korea’s civilians – they are after all allies – but not for the enemy’s civilians.
War is great – war leads to prosperity – war cures all ills.
We Americans loves us some war. Hell, it’s the only thing we’re really good at anymore.
Still, North Korea is making provocative statements on a daily basis that are growing harder to shrug off.
Why can’t we shrug them off forever?
You’re quite right about how subconsciously pro-war the nation is. I was against both of our recent wars, but it was more on an abstract basis — I didn’t have a concept (nor did most Americans) of what modern war really means.
Recently I read War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning and it really spelled out both what modern war is like and also what it is about the psychology of war that makes the nation subconsciously pro-war. I think it’s a must read.
One of my most formative moments as an adult happened the first week I moved to Western Germany in 1987. I was having lunch with my office colleagues and one of them had the latest Der Spiegel (leading German news magazine).
I’ll never forget that cover. The topic was peace talks between the US and the USSR. It showed representatives of the two nations shaking hands. What stunned me was how the US was portrayed.
The USSR was an arm of a bear in a military jacket with a bear claw doing the hand shake. The US was the arm of an eagle in the same situation. But despite my best efforts I’d been brainwashed with 24 years of US media propoganda and thought of the US as the peaceful nation and the USSR as warlike. In this picture both were warriors – I’d never seen such a powerfully drawn eagle claw.
As my colleagues discussed the article (in English – I was just getting started with German) I was fascinated by their views. They all were of course very glad to be occupied by the US and not the USSR (and yes, they were occupied – something else I hadn’t really digested before), but saw the US for what it was – a powerful military force, much more powerful than the USSR – and the negotiator who held most of the cards.
But in our own country not only have even most liberals bought into the “force for good” propoganda, even worse we see most foreign policy challenges as military challenges. Just read Boo’s original post.
For example, Iran might be trying to get a Nuke – our thoughts are about sanctions and bombing and even occupation. No discussions of that fact that Iran’s behavior is rational given their situation. No discussions of how to stop their Nuke development program, with verification, in exchange for addressing their legitimate security issues (something that Clinton’s administration actually did – before Bush undid it).
Dammit, we spend half our non-“entitlement” tax budget on the military – you can be damn sure we’re going to use it as our first options whenever we want.
Yeah, the founding fathers were on to something when they wrote that first declaration of rights:
XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
Or, as Tom Lehrer sang in 1965:
Fortunately in times of crisis just like this America always has this number one instrument of diplomacy to fall back on. Here’s a song about it.
When someone makes a move
Of which we don’t approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!
We’ll send them all we’ve got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they’ve seen the light,
They’ve got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
‘Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They’d rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!
And that’s what the US has become.
This is tiresome bullshit. Look at what I am responding to and tell me again about my lack of concern for civilians and eagerness for war.
I don’t think so; as the article itself says,
The photoshopping is of a piece with the hilarious Attack on America video with “We are the world” in the soundtrack. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that North Korea has developed the nuclear capacity they have, but the domestic audience is what the Cute Leader is concerned with, infantile threats have always been a major part of their SOP, and this one seems like a clear example.
I am not sure that it matters that his primary audience is domestic.
Can you explain to me why it matters?
You seem to be saying that it is an empty threat considering that their missiles cannot reach the targets on the map. As I understand it, their bomb isn’t small enough to put on a missile anyway.
But you can’t make threats like this. War with North Korea doesn’t have to start with a missile strike in America. He’s saying that the armistice is over. He’s making threats against South Korea, too. He needs to shut his pie-hole. He’s fucking lucky that Obama is president, too, and not some hothead like John McCain.
He’s fucking lucky that Clinton is not President.
However, I think my comment above is the correct analysis.
I don’t think it’s “empty” but I don’t think it’s serious. What I mean about its being a domestic message is that the purpose is domestic. Kim is not talking to us or even particularly concerned with how we hear it: he is telling the North Korean public that he is a very tough guy in spite of his youth and that everybody who says their bombs and missiles aren’t good enough is a liar and that all the serious old generals picture hanging on his every word are really hanging on his every word. It is certainly a good thing that Obama is president, because if there is any positive thing the US can do he is likely to see it, but this is really not a crisis.
Last time North Korea abrogated the armistice and threatened war against the South was 2009 (that’s a Heritage link, watch out). They went most of the way before a missile test in 2003 (see http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30004.pdf). Some of their violations of the armistice have been pretty dreadful and caused considerable death, like those in 2010, but they don’t lead to general war.
“domestic propaganda purposes”
I believe only a small percentage of North Koreans even have electricity. How many see a paper? I doubt most North Koreans are even aware. Kim Un and his generals are seriously pissed off about the latest round of sanctions affecting luxury goods. Like our wealthy class god forbid anything affects them. So the propaganda is probably meant for his military (wealthy class) and our news organizations. It is dangerous because the rhetoric can increase until you have to prove yourself with violent hostile acts(2010). Then you risk escalation and a lot of dead.
Hmm. That line of thinking would have justified launching a war with Russia in 1962.
Or a war with Iraq in 2003.
Yeah, dictators threaten shit. As others have pointed out this particular threat from North Korea is empty, but even if it weren’t, you’re arguing for a war to somehow make things better for the victims. Yeah, this IS tiresome bullshit.
You mention the Reunification of Germany in another comment. I was there. It was wonderful. You know the best part? It wasn’t precipitated by war.
China will help. They have no interest in having millions of N. Korean refugees to feed.
I find this very interesting in the article BooMan linked to:
If you don’t stop calling us capitalists, we will shut down our joint venture. Isn’t that the way to read it?
As I understand, the South Koreans just shrug their shoulders as these tough words have been heard before. The usual North Korean response is a military campaign by sinking a schip or artillery bombardment of one of the disputed islands in the Yellow Sea. The posturing is on both sides when reading the headlines in Korean papers.
It seems Seoul is more worried about demographibs, the missing generation and “gerontocratization” of Korea.
Quick war >>> unified country >>> prosperity (on a massive scale). Exactly when has that worked in the past? Iraq? Afghanistan? Oh, sure, you’re not endorsing a quick war with N. Korea, but your fantasy of how such wars work out remains active — and therefore, is very dangerous.
Closest analogy is the reunification of Germany. That wasn’t easy, but it did lead to rather stronger economy once the kinks were ironed out.
Obviously, it helped that the reunification was voluntarily. But even in Vietnam, it’s obvious that divided groups with the same ethnicity can reunite quickly even after a brutal civil war.
The biggest problem with Korea, aside from the nutty government in the North, is the incredible difference in wealth and education, which would create an enormous burden on the South for a very long time. East Germany has been a burden on West Germany, but not to anything like the degree we would see in Korea.
Germans were allowed to choose reunification peaceably when the USSR collapsed. Korea and Vietnam would likely have done the same if the US hadn’t interfered with the unification referendums that were supposed to take place in both countries. If we want to get real there was no reason that either country should have been divided in the first place.
Why is that part of WWII that US mythology denies — we didn’t defeat the axis powers by ourselves. USSR forces had reached the 38th parallel in Korea and we’re waiting for the US forces to complete the job in the southern part of the country. We got there after Japan surrendered. And what did we do?
It wasn’t as if we hadn’t recently and successfully dealt with a similar situation.
Once Japan withdrew from Indochina, the Vietnamese didn’t welcome their colonial master back — resentment likely heightened because Vichy France ceded control of the country to Japan. (An occupation that led to a famine that killed millions.) The partition of Vietnam was a concession to get France out. A national reunification referendum was scheduled for July 1956. Another war wasn’t needed or desired by a majority for unification.
If this were, say, Syria, the CIA would send in a few fake do-gooders/hikers/students/defectors to lay the groundwork for a revolution.
It’s hard, but even such closed countries can eventually be penetrated. After all, Albania went from being the North Korea of Europe to an organized crime state functioning in the family of nations.
OMG! The Axis of Evil lives!
China has a problem here. For the record let’s get some things straight on “China’s puppet state”, because that’s not the case anymore. NK managed to sour it’s relations with Russia, and then China. They have no friends at all.
The real problem is that China does not want millions of refugee’s flooding across it’s border. It’s a god damn nightmare waiting to happen. And due to the nature of NK, it would take several generations for them to integrate properly. So China is just as fucked in this situation as everyone else.
Keep in mind that China has a massive diplomatic delegation in Seoul, and a huge business partnership. Seoul is full of the Chinese elite. So any NK attack on China would kill hundreds of diplomats and business leaders along with hundreds of the elites kids who get sent to school there.
And thus the problem. Any “war” in this region results in massive SK, Chinese, and American casualties. The retaliation wipes out NK and sends millions of refugees streaming into China. So in a way, NK has everyone by the balls, even China. Which is why China has been frantically trying to create high tech factories in NK to give it some sort of stability and economic backbone to remove the refugee issue (this hasn’t worked of course).
It doesn’t matter if China tells NK “look, if you don’t know this off, we’ll fucking back the US in an invasion of your ass and annex NK permanently, because none of you fuckers can run anything”. Because that doesn’t remove the entire issue of dealing with the millions of refugees.