Why Do Western Nations Nerf Their Military Responses?

[David Floyd]

So, MrFun, you agree that we should go further?

[Wezil]

So... apparently N Korea said that if S Korea responds at all they will do a full invasion. S Korea cut off trade, is sending their navy close to the border, and is seeking some action from the UN Security Council.

Symbolically. Apparently the SK industrial park on the north side of the border (1000's of NK jobs) stays open.

I saw a quote from S Korea too that they backed down in the past when N Korea attacked, but this time they are taking action.

So... are we approaching the worst war in decades?

Not from the actions taken so far. The Chinese will fill any necessary trade any new SK sanctions may impose and the north will continue to bluster.

[Wezil]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=127106969

Read between the lines. North Korea today sent a blustery message that it was cutting all ties to the south and made fiery speeches but as a foot note the exempted the Kaesong industrial complex which South Korean companies built in North Korea to build goodies for export using cheap North Korean labor. The Kaesong complex produces the majority of North Korea's exports and gets much of its subparts and supplies from the south. North Korea isn't going to war and instead is just posturing; they know they sank that ship and they want to stir the pot but they don't want to actually start a war. Like their missile tests and their nuclear program it is all look at me stuff hoping to get concessions from the South.

Sorry Oerdin. I should have read the rest of the thread.

This.

[Wezil]

Still awaiting the "COckney Solution"...

[MrFun]

So, MrFun, you agree that we should go further?

I think North Korea has been allowed to carry on with too many blatant violations for too long. I'd rather not have a war though, given that China is North Korea's neighbor.

[onodera]

And to go full circle to the OP, why the hell doesn't the South have the balls to strike back??

Any successful armed conflict will lead to NK disintegrting as a state. This means SK will have to carry the burden of providing for the Northern population. SK doesn't want that.
Neither China or Russia want pro-American SK sharing a border with them.
NK doesn't want any real armed conflict because the ruling elite prefers being the rulers of a ****ty country to being dead or imprisoned.
The only country that might want to take action is the USA. Except no one will support invading NK after Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Wezil]

Any successful armed conflict will lead to NK disintegrting as a state. This means SK will have to carry the burden of providing for the Northern population. SK doesn't want that.

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. The cost will be paid at some point and it won't get any cheaper with time.

Neither China or Russia want pro-American SK sharing a border with them.

Agreed, but a US troop presence is no longer necessary when NK is no more. It's the troops, not the politics that would be the problem for the Chinese/Russians.

NK doesn't want any real armed conflict because the ruling elite prefers being the rulers of a ****ty country to being dead or imprisoned.

Agreed, but why should we let it be exclusively their choice?

The only country that might want to take action is the USA. Except no one will support invading NK after Afghanistan and Iraq.

No one wants to take action. It's how we got here in the first place.

[David Floyd]

I think North Korea has been allowed to carry on with too many blatant violations for too long. I'd rather not have a war though, given that China is North Korea's neighbor.

In other words, continue to allow them to commit blatant violations. It really is one or the other.

[C0ckney]

Still awaiting the "COckney Solution"...

sorry, i've been a bit busy exploring rio and that sort of thing.

i never said i had a solution to the NK problem (if i had then i probably wouldn't be sitting here telling you guys about it). in fact i broadly agree with you, there are no good solutions.

i think that the idea of military action though is laughable, not militarily, but politically. there's no way that there would be UN support for military action, unless NK nuked seoul or something. so that leaves another unilateral regime change operation and i don't think anyone has the appetite for another one of those.

what is likely to happen is that the west will do very little, they will be some slow 'progress' in the 6 power talks, north korea will continue to provoke to get concessions and the people of NK will continue to suffer and die. politicians in the west will sit on their hands and wait until kim jong il dies and hope that his successor is better. maybe he will be, who knows, although i'm not very optimistic.

[MrFun]

In other words, continue to allow them to commit blatant violations. It really is one or the other.

Going to war is not something to take lightly, especially if China is on the opposing side.

[David Floyd]

China wouldn't be on the other side. If you think China's going to war over North Korea, you're on crack.

[Wezil]

sorry, i've been a bit busy exploring rio and that sort of thing.

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

i never said i had a solution to the NK problem (if i had then i probably wouldn't be sitting here telling you guys about it). in fact i broadly agree with you, there are no good solutions.

i think that the idea of military action though is laughable, not militarily, but politically. there's no way that there would be UN support for military action, unless NK nuked seoul or something. so that leaves another unilateral regime change operation and i don't think anyone has the appetite for another one of those.

what is likely to happen is that the west will do very little, they will be some slow 'progress' in the 6 power talks, north korea will continue to provoke to get concessions and the people of NK will continue to suffer and die. politicians in the west will sit on their hands and wait until kim jong il dies and hope that his successor is better. maybe he will be, who knows, although i'm not very optimistic.

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.

[Wezil]

China wouldn't be on the other side. If you think China's going to war over North Korea, you're on crack.

I think China's concerns are economic more than anything. Keeping the starving Koreans in Korea is what they want.

[Dinner]

Symbolically. Apparently the SK industrial park on the north side of the border (1000's of NK jobs) stays open.

And that industrial park just so happens to make the majority of North Korean exports. Wow, who would have guessed they wouldn't kill their main source of hard currency?

[Wezil]

Apparently the propaganda war is heating up along the DMZ with loudspeakers and large electronic billboards. The north has threatened to shoot at any installed in the DMZ.