N. Korea / S.Korea - Why are the US and S. Korea poking a country whose leader is a lunatic?

[Are_grits_groceries]

While everybody is raging about the Gusher in the Gulf, a very dangerous situation has developed in the Korean peninsula. The relations between the 2 countries have always been adversarial to say the least. There have been several times when the 2 countries seemed close to having at it. They are technically still in a state of war.

This is an even more dangerous time to be upping the ante with them over the sinking of a South Korean ship. Kim Jong-il's actions have always been unpredictable, and they may even more so now. He is said to be in ill health. How much control he has over the government has been up for some debate.

If Kim Jong-il is still in command, he may be even more desperate to keep running the country. He has already proven that he doesn't care about the people in North Korea. The general population is starving and in dire straits, and the resources that are available are geared towards the military. At any moment he may decide that the best course of action he can take is to attack South Korea. It may seem highly illogical and imprudent to outside observers, but their reality isn't his.

If he isn't in charge and there is a struggle for leadership, the situation may be even more dangerous if that is possible. Somebody that is trying to seize control of the country among the group that is in charge so to speak may decide to prove his case by using the military against South Korea.

If they sank the South Korean ship, it was another provocation in a long line of them. South Korea is upping the ante by responding to that incident with increasingly warlike rhetoric. They are also taking some actions that are highly questionable. They imposed sanctions which caused the North Koreans to become even more strident. Now they and the US are going to conduct joint anti-submarine and other military exercises.

South Korea may be justified in taking these actions. However, just because one is justified in doing something, that doesn't mean it's the more prudent course to take. If the person who lives in the apartment above me plays loud music all night, I might be justified if I banged on his door every night and threatened him if he didn't stop. However, that might just start an escalating situation between us. As we both become increasingly angry, who knows where it would lead. A more measured approach with others involved might be the best way to proceed.

There may come a point when some more drastic measure has to be taken. However, would I be the best one to take it? A decision has to be made that weighs the harm of his action versus the harm that mine might cause.

Controlling North Korea in any manner is an iffy proposition. The Chinese are the people who may have the best chance at guiding them in some way. Even they appear at a loss at times. Using increasingly bellicose rhetoric and holding military maneuvers doesn't seem to be the way to bring tensions down. The argument that North Korea can't be allowed to continue its rogue actions is a very dicey one. Is the sinking of that ship and the other provocations worth a war?

Every time the rhetoric is escalated more and more honor and face are put on the line by both nations. That is akin to putting more and more fatlighter on a dry pile of wood. Fighting about one's honor has started many disasters.

The US is stretched thin militarily to the breaking point. Do we really want to risk a confrontation with North Korea. South Korea's president, Lee Myung-bak is moving cautiously on the one hand by engaging the UN, but he is acting more aggressively with other moves. He also appears to be leading the way in upping the ante.

Somebody better try to bring down the tension before it goes beyond the point of no return. The Gusher in the Gulf may not be the only disaster we end up in the middle of.

Here are two articles about the situation:
South Korea to Designate North as Main Foe
President Lee Myung-bak said on Tuesday he would redesignate North Korea as his country’s archenemy, as the South Korean and U.S. militaries announced plans for major naval exercises in a show of combined force.
<snip>
“We do not hope for war but if South Korea, with the U.S. and Japan on its back, tries to attack us, it’s Chairman Kim Jong-il’s order to finish the task of unifying the fatherland, which was left undone” during the Korean War, the group quoted the instruction as saying.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/world/asia/26korea.html?hp

U.S. Implicates North Korean Leader in Attack
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/asia/23korea.html

The situation is complicating US/China relations and affecting financial markets as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. 46 sailors died when that ship sank

This is somewhat beyond your neighbour playing loud music all night. The South Korean and US actions are not violent; unlike the North Korean ones.

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. True.

I am not trying to minimize ther deaths. I am using an example as flawed as it may be.

However as violent as that is, should we up the ante and increase the risk of war with them because of it?
Is this the point where the risk is worth the disaster it could start?? That would increase the violence exponentially, and the ability to stop it might not be within our means without a very drastic action such as a nuke. That would really destabilize more than just those 2 countries.

Assuming that North Korea will follow a more moderate approach is a big gamble. The worst case scenario better be considered because it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

I'm asking?

[MUAD_DIB]

13. Perhaps you can give Obama and the South Koreans a briefing on the subject.

I'm sure that they wouldn't want to proceed without it.


Yes, that is sarcasm.

[Are_grits_groceries]

15. ***sigh***

Never ask. Never tell. Never question. Never know.

[MUAD_DIB]

16. ***sigh***

What a catchy comeback.

You shouldn't waste any time sweetheart. You have a briefing at the White House to bring Obama up to date on everything that you know about.

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. I asked a question.

I gave my assessment. I cited some sources. You answered me with belittlement and sarcasm. That apparently is meant to dismiss anything I have to say or ask.

I asked. Your answer is telling.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. South Korea and US actions have not yet 'upped the ante'

They have not launched any military attacks. So far, their actions have been to defuse the violence, while making it clear that North Korea cannot just sink South Korean ships with impunity.

"Assuming that North Korea will follow a more moderate approach is a big gamble". That seems like an argument from you for South Korea and/or the USA to attack now, because you can't trust Kim to not attack again. I'm sure the worst case scenario, ie Kim launching whatever nukes, with whatever practical capability they actaully have, and a massive bombardment of South Korea (which everyone is certain North Korea is capable of) has been considered, but they won't talk about that in public. Because that would be inflammatory.

[Are_grits_groceries]

28. Thank you for your assessment.

Point taken. I am NOT being sarcastic.

[seabeyond]

2. hm, i wonder if you just look the other way. nt

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. That's what I am asking?

You don't have to look away. You do have to consider what your response will be at every level.

[seabeyond]

33. i heard about this a week ago. they have not rushed in. yelling macho bullshit

seems to me they have been slow and steady in their approach. will be interesting to see. but.... there is an issue with north korea.

i was totally unaware of this until i heard about it last week.

[cali]

3. seems like N. Korea is the one upping the ante

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. I believe both sides are.

A step by one side leads to a step by another. The path of these threats is not towards any moderate end.

[MUAD_DIB]

14. Would you like to give us a detailed account as to how you arrived at that conclusion?

Be specific. Cite examples.

[Are_grits_groceries]

17. OK

N-Sinking
S-Sanctions
S-Lee's threat: after the sinking of the vessel and after Mr. Lee’s pledges to make North Korea “pay a price.”
N-Kim Jong-IL: ordered his military and reserve forces to be ready for war
S-Military maneuvers
S-Lee: South Korea’s relisting of North Korea as its “principal enemy”.

???????????

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. To "up the ante" here, wouldn't the U.S. and S. Korea actually have to kill N. Koreans?

[Are_grits_groceries]

32. Point taken. nt

[Statistical]

7. You don't respond to an act of agression with appeasement .

I actually think South Korea response has been rather restrained.

Had a US warship been torpedoed by any nation for any reason we likely would have dropped hundred thousand tons of bombs on every strategic target (and likely many collateral ones) we could find.

[Are_grits_groceries]

8. Go for it.

If Russia or China sinks a ship, start the conflagration. It will have begun very badly, but the endgame is nil-nil.

What if we sank one of their ships for whatever reason?

[Statistical]

9. Our sailors should be trained well enough to know sinking a Russian or Chinese warship

will start a war (and they are).

Now if the sinking was the action of a rogue captain acting without orders or because he was spooked that North Korea should get out in front of that. However North Korea hasn't stepped up to the plate and even offered that as an explanation (true or not).

If the sinking was the result of a command from North Korea military command then it is an act of war. Saying South Korea is saber rattling because they are pushing for sanctions and military exercises (to improve submarine detection) is silly. That is exactly what South Korea should be doing. Like I said if it was many other nations the response would be far more swift and decisive.

They have 40+ dead sailors, and couple hundred million dollars of taxpayer resources at the bottom of the ocean. North Korea committed an act of war.

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. Should......

That one word has gotten a lot of trouble started.

Regulators in all areas should have been much stricter under W. That worked out well.

An act of war.... Okay, go for it. What's another war or two?
Other countries should leave those 2 alone. However, China has shown that they will act if North Korea becomes involved in a war. I wouldn't assume their actions would be helpful for us.

[NNN0LHI]

25. Remember when China knocked one of our spy planes into the sea?

And then they sent the plane back to us in little tiny crates?

I don't remember any war over that one.

I only remember Bush apologizing several times until the Chinese were finally satisfied.

Don

[Statistical]

26. Into the sea? When was this? n/t

[NNN0LHI]

27. Right after Bush took office

[Statistical]

29. You mean this plane that China "knocked into the sea"?

The one on land. The one that was result of accidental collision with Chinese jet. The one in which no US crewmember died but Chinese jet fighter pilot was killed. The one that happened in Chinese airspace. The one in which the US was spying on China. That one?

Or maybe it was another plane that went "into the seas".

[Dr Morbius]

24. No nation can idly allow her warships to be sunk without responding.

I don't think either South Korea or the United States has overreacted. Historically, firing on a ship belonging to another nation amounts to an act of war. If one thinks about it, of course it's an act of war.

I don't see anyone "poking" DPRK. I see DPRK trying to start a war, having correctly determined the United States doesn't want to engage in another war while we have two going already. If not for the oil gusher in the Gulf, this would be the top story on the news.

[uponit7771]

11. Cause he's not as much of a lunatic as America's M$M and the DoD make him out to be?

[Are_grits_groceries]

12. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....

And we know this how???

[olegramps]

21. How many aggressive acts are the South Koreans supposed to tolerate?

North Korea is a rouge state run by a particular nasty little dictator who appears to be a bit unstable which is usually the case with megalomaniacs. The United Nations was formed in the hope that such cases could be dealt with before they plunged the world in to warfare. This a situation that should have been addressed years ago, however, it only reveals just how impotent we as humans to act logically. Perhaps in time humans will be able to cast off their primitive natures, but don't hold your breath. We are not that much different from our cousins, the apes, in their protection of their territory.

[NNN0LHI]

22. Then the South Koreans should retaliate

What are they waiting for?

Us to do it for them?

Don

[Are_grits_groceries]

23. I asked.

Many seem to think this is the point to go for it.

[msongs]

30. "resources that are available are geared towards the military" - sounds like the USA nt

[Are_grits_groceries]

34. Stock market drop: reports that North Korea had threatened its neighbor jolted the market

<snip>
Shares on all three continents skidded Tuesday and the euro resumed its fall, as reports that North Korea had threatened its southern neighbor jolted nerves already frayed by concerns about public sector finances in Europe.
<snip>
Languishing worries about the Europe’s sovereign debt crisis were joined Tuesday by renewed tensions on the Korean peninsula. “The North Korean situation is also putting pressure on stocks,” Mr. Gijsels said. “In a normal environment, this wouldn’t be having such a big impact — they talk about going to war every few months, it seems. But markets are quite nervous and will take any excuse to sell off.”

President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea said Tuesday that he would redesignate North Korea as his country’s archenemy, as the South Korean and American militaries announced plans for major naval exercises in a show of force.

On Monday, South Korea cut off trade with North Korea, denied North Korean merchant ships use of its sea lanes and called on the United Nations to censure the North for what it called the deliberate sinking of one of its warships by a North Korean submarine.

Asian indexes closed lower as a result, with the Kospi index in Seoul tumbling 2.8 percent. The Tokyo benchmark Nikkei 225 stock average fell 3.1 percent to its lowest close since Nov. 30. In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng index fell 3.5 percent.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/business/26markets.html?hp

FYI

[TheKentuckian]

35. Unrec for one of the most appalling false equivalency arguments ever

It takes guts to try to make sanctions, going to the UN, and re-declaring enemy status equal to or worse than sinking a ship and killing a nation's citizens.

What would you see as an appropriate response, especially considering S. Korea would be well within their rights to be launching attacks right now.

How do you ignore the obvious restraint en route to your lame condemnation? We all know that I'm no hawk and have been against nearly every military action this country has taken since WWII but this is CLEARLY legitimate and we have responsibility to our ally.

How can you discuss a madman and at the same time expect him to curtail his aggression in response to a total lay down Sally? You think he's going to back off or do you need civilians to be hit by missiles before they go to the UN?

You think the citizens of S Korea are going to allow their leaders to let them be sitting ducks? If this happened to us without a very humble apology for some technical problem or a rouge commander there would be no restraint like the Koreans have displayed so far but somehow you ignore the act of war and make it the same as calling for UN action in response.

I almost have to question the sanity of the OP or my own. I can't wrap my head around your ideas at all.