North Korea At It Again

Sequoioideae · 04-03-2013, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

If there is a war and North Korea is beat with Kim removed from rule, it will be interesting to see how North Korean society can adapt in the aftermath.

This would no doubt cause a power vacuum, but who knows how that would turn out. It would be interesting to see who fills the spot though.

Guybrush · 04-03-2013, 03:30 AM

I don't really know how such things go, but I guess the winners might try to or at least consider establishing a democracy (?). But how feasible that would be in a nation like that is hard to tell. Maybe they'd be ready for change or maybe they're so fiercely patriotic and loyal to the current rule that there'd be massive resistance. I've no idea!

hip hop bunny hop · 04-03-2013, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitch

Well, the US always has had a military presence in the South (Korea) and apart from the aircrafts already mentioned, there have also been a few warships moved in place to presumably....say hi and have no interest I suppose. Now, if the North really does attack, it's their shortcut to a swift end (doesn't mean the ensuing conflict won't be ghastly and horrible). Which leaves us with...when are they going to give up? Their downfall in any case seems like it is destined for an hideous conflict. Any delusions of this regime running its course should be shelved. And North Korea isn't some pseudo "we are the oppressed against the US" political case. They may have some grounds if they hadn't subjected their population to misery and tyranny, let alone the shameless propaganda. I'd be glad to be proven wrong - where there's some magical renouncement of their nuclear weapons program and lifting of the massive restrictions placed on the population, but the elements required for such a change seems to be missing.

Now, I wasn't really making a case for military intervention, but more for a resolve to not back down after their empty little threats. By 'getting rid of them' meant to be ready to intervene, if they do decide to commit suicide.

The underlined should have no basis on American foreign policy in any part of the world, let alone that in East Asia. Foreign policy should be restricted to protecting a nations vital interests, not the projection of moralism via military might.

Circe · 04-04-2013, 06:07 AM

That's an interesting take on the way foreign relations actually work. Let me tell you about this mystical faraway land called Korea. This magical country is split in two, and one of them is good friends with Mr President and all his buddies in Washington. This South Korea also has lots of money and ways to make more that it shares with its friends in America so that the two can both have a happier time. But these friendly people are in trouble, because in the North mean old Kim Jong-un and his friends have turned over to their piggy banks and realised they're empty. They need to get more money if they're going to be able to buy more food for Kim so they've decided to try and bully the South for their lunch money. If Mr President doesn't try and stand up to Kim and protect his Korean friends then Mr China will start laughing at him and his other Asian friends might stop talking to him.

tl;dr The USA needs to preserve some role of credibility in the field of international relations and pulling out support for an ally they've had since the early days of the Cold War because they aren't going to see many short term benefits from it isn't going to do that goal many favours.

Hitch · 04-04-2013, 07:26 AM

Yes, having an ally and then saying "we don't care" is a prelude for distrust from other nations. In any case, the US has already made their pledge to defend their South Korean allies and unless you think they are bluffing, I take it that "vital strategic interest" (? material interest?) isn't always a necessary precondition. Besides, apart from some of the industries in the South (electronics, ship building, vehicles), the United States also has a significant Korean immigrant population, most of whom are well educated. Nothing vital or strategic in that I presume...

A war seems highly unlikely though. Their nuclear bullying doesn't seem to be working in getting what they want.

hip hop bunny hop · 04-04-2013, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, having an ally and then saying "we don't care" is a prelude for distrust from other nations. In any case, the US has already made their pledge to defend their South Korean allies and unless you think they are bluffing, I take it that "vital strategic interest" (? material interest?) isn't always a necessary precondition. Besides, apart from some of the industries in the South (electronics, ship building, vehicles), the United States also has a significant Korean immigrant population, most of whom are well educated. Nothing vital or strategic in that I presume...

American-South Korean trade amounts to about $90 billion a year. So, no, from an economic angle the USA certainly does not have a vital interest in South Korea.

Regarding the notion that treating South Korea in a manner consistent with it's strategic worth to the USA could lead to "distrust" from other nations; I should hardly think sending a message to the rest of the world that the USA will cease to fight other nations battles for them would be a bad thing.

Circe · 04-04-2013, 11:07 AM

Err, yes it will, wanna know why? Because like it or not, the US has developed an obligation over decades to collaborate with nations such as SK in ensuring they don't fall to aggressive foreign interests. Even taken away from a one-nation perspective, you're voluntarily on the UN Security Council. It is literally your job on the international stage to fight other nations' battles for them. And it's not just a matter of preserving alliances, it's one of not appearing weak. Sure, pulling out of Korea and dressing it up as you having better things to spend your money on might not get you open laughs from China, Russia and Iran, but something like that makes allies and enemies alike question the integrity of the USA. Nationalistic bastards might like to pretend that the UsA is somehow able to fend for itself and that isolationist autarky has a chance of working, but try looking at your reliance on foreign trade and foreign interests in preserving your place at the top.

As for the "aww dont be stoopid there trade isnt that importent" argument, try reading up on how economics aren't stagnant. This is quickly becoming the Asian century, with nearly every competent economist out there predicting that the majority of East Asian markets including SK are going to rapidly grow in the future at a rate far higher than the USA's traditional partners such as Europe. I'm not sure why I'm arguing this as anyone who genuinely believes the USA should pull out of Korea to save them a couple of dollars on their yearly tax bill must be either mad, stupid or completely cold-hearted but come on, your self-interests are absolutely here.

PoorOldPo · 04-10-2013, 06:06 AM

Its alright guys, kim Jong Un is just dyslexic, turns out he was making Unclear threats, not Nuclear.

**Janszoon** · 04-10-2013, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoorOldPo

Its alright guys, kim Jong Un is just dyslexic, turns out he was making Unclear threats, not Nuclear.

Thank dog!

Sequoioideae · 04-10-2013, 09:38 PM

04-03-2013, 03:30 AM	#32 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I don't really know how such things go, but I guess the winners might try to or at least consider establishing a democracy (?). But how feasible that would be in a nation like that is hard to tell. Maybe they'd be ready for change or maybe they're so fiercely patriotic and loyal to the current rule that there'd be massive resistance. I've no idea! __________________ Something Completely Different

04-10-2013, 06:06 AM	#38 (permalink)
PoorOldPo Blue Pill Oww Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Luimneach, Eire Posts: 1,107	Its alright guys, kim Jong Un is just dyslexic, turns out he was making Unclear threats, not Nuclear. __________________ https://www.instagram.com/hennas.lullaby/

04-04-2013, 06:07 AM	#34 (permalink)
Circe Blunt After Blunt After Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: In a French-ass restaurant Posts: 337	That's an interesting take on the way foreign relations actually work. Let me tell you about this mystical faraway land called Korea. This magical country is split in two, and one of them is good friends with Mr President and all his buddies in Washington. This South Korea also has lots of money and ways to make more that it shares with its friends in America so that the two can both have a happier time. But these friendly people are in trouble, because in the North mean old Kim Jong-un and his friends have turned over to their piggy banks and realised they're empty. They need to get more money if they're going to be able to buy more food for Kim so they've decided to try and bully the South for their lunch money. If Mr President doesn't try and stand up to Kim and protect his Korean friends then Mr China will start laughing at him and his other Asian friends might stop talking to him. tl;dr The USA needs to preserve some role of credibility in the field of international relations and pulling out support for an ally they've had since the early days of the Cold War because they aren't going to see many short term benefits from it isn't going to do that goal many favours.

04-04-2013, 07:26 AM	#35 (permalink)
Hitch Music Addict Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 80	Yes, having an ally and then saying "we don't care" is a prelude for distrust from other nations. In any case, the US has already made their pledge to defend their South Korean allies and unless you think they are bluffing, I take it that "vital strategic interest" (? material interest?) isn't always a necessary precondition. Besides, apart from some of the industries in the South (electronics, ship building, vehicles), the United States also has a significant Korean immigrant population, most of whom are well educated. Nothing vital or strategic in that I presume... A war seems highly unlikely though. Their nuclear bullying doesn't seem to be working in getting what they want.

04-04-2013, 11:07 AM	#37 (permalink)
Circe Blunt After Blunt After Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: In a French-ass restaurant Posts: 337	Err, yes it will, wanna know why? Because like it or not, the US has developed an obligation over decades to collaborate with nations such as SK in ensuring they don't fall to aggressive foreign interests. Even taken away from a one-nation perspective, you're voluntarily on the UN Security Council. It is literally your job on the international stage to fight other nations' battles for them. And it's not just a matter of preserving alliances, it's one of not appearing weak. Sure, pulling out of Korea and dressing it up as you having better things to spend your money on might not get you open laughs from China, Russia and Iran, but something like that makes allies and enemies alike question the integrity of the USA. Nationalistic bastards might like to pretend that the UsA is somehow able to fend for itself and that isolationist autarky has a chance of working, but try looking at your reliance on foreign trade and foreign interests in preserving your place at the top. As for the "aww dont be stoopid there trade isnt that importent" argument, try reading up on how economics aren't stagnant. This is quickly becoming the Asian century, with nearly every competent economist out there predicting that the majority of East Asian markets including SK are going to rapidly grow in the future at a rate far higher than the USA's traditional partners such as Europe. I'm not sure why I'm arguing this as anyone who genuinely believes the USA should pull out of Korea to save them a couple of dollars on their yearly tax bill must be either mad, stupid or completely cold-hearted but come on, your self-interests are absolutely here.