Why Do Western Nations Nerf Their Military Responses?

[Dinner]

I think it's just the same old story. North Korea makes a blatant violation because it can do whatever it wants, then South Korea, United States, and others beat their chests like gorillas and threaten "measures" like writing angry letters and wagging their fingers.

Same old, same old . . .

[BeBMan]

If we can agree (?) that reunification is in the long term best interests of the Korean people then this is a poor argument for the status quo.

It's a good argument from the point of those who'd have to pay the price of war right now. There can still be hope for a (relatively) peaceful change in the long term that would make the costs of any transition a bit more managable than all out war. Now admittedly that doesn't look probable right now, but then in 1975 it didn't look like the USSR would go downhill in less than 20 years.

[Wezil]

Peaceful is always preferable than war but I see no signs of a peaceful reunification in the foreseeable future. Sure, we can hope something cool may miraculously happen but it is a poor basis for policy.

[Wezil]

Btw, many nations are "paying the price" for the stalemate there and have been for the last 50 years. This isn't just a Korean concern

[BeBMan]

Peaceful is always preferable than war but I see no signs of a peaceful reunification in the foreseeable future. Sure, we can hope something cool may miraculously happen but it is a poor basis for policy.

That is why politics should work for that goal and not hope for miracles

What would be the alternative? If it isn't possible to implement a good solution immediately they'd just go with the worst option?

Btw, many nations are "paying the price" for the stalemate there and have been for the last 50 years. This isn't just a Korean concern

Yeah, but the question is if that price is comparable to the one of full scale war there, which would affect others as well.

[MrFun]

Oerdin, I'm familiar with that video - that's what came to my mind when I made that earlier post.

[Wezil]

What would be the alternative? If it isn't possible to implement a good solution immediately they'd just go with the worst option?

You may not have heard but the NK's are sinking boats...

There is a price to be paid while we do nothing and hope for eventual reunification - reunification which will also carry a price tag that is growing by the day as the north becomes further behind.

Yeah, but the question is if that price is comparable to the one of full scale war there, which would affect others as well.

I prefer short term pain over long term. We've waited 50 years for a miracle and the north has done nothing but become more brazen over that time. The 'wait them out' approach is clearly a failure.

[rah]

While I see no good solution here either, Wez is right, the wait them out approach is clearly a failure and now it appears that it's going to get worse.

[Wezil]

While we're considering the fate of the people directly involved, let's not forget about the North Korean people. They are desperately poor and dying from starvation/malnutrition under a regime that just doesn't give a damn. Waiting another 50 years is doing them no favour.

[C0ckney]

My apologies. I saw you around last evening (my time) and thought you were dodging.

no worries. i think i may have logged on to the internet very briefly before bed last night (i have the OT as my homepage).

Doing nothing is the easiest course of action which of course is why it will be the route taken. That doesn't mean we can't speculate on what may be a better, alternative, approach.

As laughable as war with NK may be (for the political reasons you argued well) it may well be a better approach than 50 more years of the same.

i don't disagree with you, but when you discuss an alternative approach you have to take account of the political realities.

there would have to be a great deal of planning for the reunification of korea, how to stop everyone simply moving from the north to the south (or to china for that matter) in the confusion and how to start to rebuild the economy and social systems in the north. i think you would need to have all the interested countries involved in this process (SK, china, US, japan, russia and maybe the EU and some others), giving aid, providing advice and expertise. i'm sure there would be some excellent commercial opportunies in rebuilding north korea. i would support a war under these circumstances, but again it comes back to the problem of getting that international support. if there wasn't the international support or a credible plan for the aftermath, i couldn't see myself supporting a war.

[C0ckney]

just to be clear, i think the situation at the moment is dire, but that it is better to work towards a peaceful re-unification at the moment.

[Wezil]

...and how do you do that?

[C0ckney]

with great difficulty, sadly...

realistically, put pressure on china to take a firmer line. try to (somehow) find a way to influence kim's successor, perhaps by a strategy of suggesting that there is a way back into the international community for NK if he (the son) gives up the nukes and opens up the country and economy.

[Wezil]

Apparently it is the younger son being "groomed" for succession. Presumably the older is too sane for the position.

I'm not optimistic any heir would be better.

[MrFun]

(i have the OT as my homepage).

soooo sad