NK Attack on SK: International Community Response Needed

  • News
  • Thread starter g33kski11z
  • Start date
In summary, the international community is waiting for something more serious to happen before taking any action, while NK is escalating the situation.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes - the last attack was done in secret, so it couldn''t be absolutely proven N. Korea did it. This time, there was no question and they acknowledged it. That's surprising to me.

I don't think the international community has the stones to do anything real, so it will require tanks rolling across the border before they do anything more than some sanctions.
 
  • #3
Do you think its more of a 'show of force' considering the imminent change in command there?
 
  • #4
russ_watters said:
I don't think the international community has the stones to do anything real, so it will require tanks rolling across the border before they do anything more than some sanctions.

First thing I thought! While everyone is talking about how dumb NK is, all I could think is: "they're totally going to get away with this."

Frankly, they should already be eating MOABs right now.
 
  • #5
That was my thought too...

.. I wonder what other countries think they could do and 'get away with' ...

say China.. with respect to Taiwan..
 
  • #6
g33kski11z said:
<link>
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1

I'm curious, I know that NK likes to 'provoke' the US & SK, but isn't this a tad bit more than 'usual"?

.. how long should the international community wait before something (besides sanctions) are done?

I can't speak for the international community, but I think the United States should stay out of it. This is in China's neighborhood, let them police their backyard.
 
  • #7
Jack21222 said:
I can't speak for the international community, but I think the United States should stay out of it. This is in China's neighborhood, let them police their backyard.
Then again, the US has forces in SK, so they are kind of stuck in the middle of this situation.

And - S. Korea Could Seek Deployment of US Tactical Nuclear Weapons !
http://www.voanews.com/english/news...of-US-Tactical-Nuclear-Weapons-109819069.html

I don't know if that statement precipitated the NK's artillery bombardment, or was in response to the attack.

Way to escalate conflict. :frown:
 
  • #8
Astronuc said:
Way to escalate conflict. :frown:

It's a sad truth that sometimes the best way OUT of a conflict is to push it as hard as you can. Escalation (despite its name) doesn't always lead to more violence.

Having said that, North Korea is probably the type of country to react violently to this type of "provocation".
 
  • #10
Astronuc said:
Then again, the US has forces in SK, so they are kind of stuck in the middle of this situation.

.. That's kind of what I was getting at.. our forces (at least some) are there, what would they do, just turn their collective heads away or leave? (I can't see that, not that I can see China moving on Taiwan either, but still)
 
  • #11
There cannot be done much without the help of China/Russia.
 
  • #12
N. Korea Shells S. Korean Island

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_clash" .

But I hate letting bullies get away with murder much, much more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Honestly, good on North Korea for not backing down. South Korea can't just do whatever the hell it pleases because it' backed by the USA and no one likes NK.

I place the blame for this situation firmly on SKs shoulders if I lived in a country where war was ongoing and the enemy fired anything remotely close to my nation I would expect my nation to shoot back. They gave warning but of course whylisten to NK since they'll look like the bad guys anyways?
 
  • #14
zomgwtf said:
..if I lived in a country where war was ongoing and the enemy fired anything remotely close to my nation I would expect my nation to shoot back..

Then couldn't the whole middle east attack the US? :wink:

.. I think there is a difference between an 'act of war' and a training exercise..
 
  • #15
We're kind of all missing the point. The island that NK shelled (Yeonpyeong) is one that they claim ownership to anyway (including the waters around it).

It seems like a territorial dispute that is looking for any excuse to be settled militarily.

Training exercise or not, this dispute will continue to happen until the two sides can agree on who owns what.
 
  • #16
g33kski11z said:
Then couldn't the whole middle east attack the US? :wink:

.. I think there is a difference between an 'act of war' and a training exercise..

If the entire middle east attacked the US I wouldn't be particularly surprised.(Aside from some extremely weak nations relative to USA attacking the USA)

I don't think there's any difference in this situation. They knowingly and deliberately disregarded NKs demands to stand down in disputed waters. They are currently in a war with each other and stuffs always happening. It's not surprising at all that NK retaliated.
 
  • #17
zomgwtf said:
I don't think there's any difference in this situation. They knowingly and deliberately disregarded NKs demands to stand down in disputed waters. They are currently in a war with each other and stuffs always happening. It's not surprising at all that NK retaliated.

There's a good point in here. In fact, North Korea actually sent a message to South Korea at 8AM local time telling them not to hold their 10AM training exercise.

Maybe the question is whether or not the training exercise was "legal" by the Korean rules of engagement.
 
  • #18
The Wikipedia section on "International Reaction" is almost humorous to read: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Yeonpyeong#International_reaction).

Sweden — Foreign Minister Carl Bildt commented on his blog, calling the incident "very worrying" and for China to "use the full extent of its influence over Pyongyang to affect its regime."[33]

(Emphasis added.)

Sweden's a great place and all, but they've got to stop getting their government officials from the local coffee shop.
 
  • #19
Astronuc said:
Then again, the US has forces in SK, so they are kind of stuck in the middle of this situation.

And - S. Korea Could Seek Deployment of US Tactical Nuclear Weapons !
http://www.voanews.com/english/news...of-US-Tactical-Nuclear-Weapons-109819069.html

I don't know if that statement precipitated the NK's artillery bombardment, or was in response to the attack.

Way to escalate conflict. :frown:

IMO, North Korea is the one escalating the conflict, as they are seeking nuclear weapons.

The way to pressure North Korea is through China, as China supplies NK with a lot of their food, electricity, and so forth. The way to pressure China is to seriously allow Japan and South Korea to become nuclear-armed (as the last thing China wants in particular is a nuclear-armed Japan).
 
  • #20
I doubt the appropriate response to military exercises is to attack and kill soldiers and civilians.
 
  • #21
zomgwtf said:
I don't think there's any difference in this situation. They knowingly and deliberately disregarded NKs demands to stand down in disputed waters.
FlexGunship said:
There's a good point in here. In fact, North Korea actually sent a message to South Korea at 8AM local time telling them not to hold their 10AM training exercise.

..and what if Iran told Israel to 'stand down' from their training..? (or the US for that matter) .. or is that fact that they're in disputed waters make a difference...?
 
  • #22
g33kski11z said:
..and what if Iran told Israel to 'stand down' from their training..? (or the US for that matter) .. or is that fact that they're in disputed waters make a difference...?

This.

The problem with boundary disputes is that people assume sides based on existing political alliances. What if North Korea really does have claim to that island? I'm not saying that do, I'm just posing the question.

At least North Korea started by talking.

(Note: I have a passionate hatred for North Korea and their human rights policies. I'm just trying to have a dispassionate discussion.)

EDIT: What if Canada laid claim to the Aleutian Islands and then planned to hold an artillery demonstration there? I KNOW this is a bad example, but someone somewhere (in North Korea) feels this is a really really good example. It's important to try to understand militaristic and political motivations.
 
  • #23
g33kski11z said:
.. That's kind of what I was getting at.. our forces (at least some) are there, what would they do, just turn their collective heads away or leave? (I can't see that, not that I can see China moving on Taiwan either, but still)

I'm a big believer that the United States should shut down most, if not all, of its foreign military bases. This would include the ones in South Korea. I don't think we can afford to play world police.
 
  • #24
Jack21222 said:
I'm a big believer that the United States should shut down most, if not all, of its foreign military bases. This would include the ones in South Korea. I don't think we can afford to play world police.
eh, I don't agree completely. If we are allies with a country & we want bases there (and the 'host nation' has no issue) I see no reason we shouldn't ...

I do agree we shouldn't be the 'world police', but as a super power, we do have some obligation to try and 'keep peace' were we can..

FlexGunship said:
The problem with boundary disputes is that people assume sides based on existing political alliances. What if North Korea really does have claim to that island? I'm not saying that do, I'm just posing the question.

Point taken. I'm not an expert (or even knowledgeable enough) to know who's the 'rightful' owner of the island is, but it just seems to be a provoking action by NK..Edit: thanks Flex..
 
Last edited:
  • #25
g33kski11z said:
Point taken. I'm not an expert (or even knowledgeable enough) to know who's the 'rightful' owner of the island is, but it just seems to be a provoking action by BK..

Burger King has a history of provocation.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7hbUUeEeR2uZ60MsSkH9p6qELznyUVDT6OLrgKornYKN4qGb7yQ.jpg
 
  • #26
g33kski11z said:
..and what if Iran told Israel to 'stand down' from their training..? (or the US for that matter) .. or is that fact that they're in disputed waters make a difference...?

It makes a whole world of difference. Coupled by the fact that they are (for the 3rd time) in a war with each other still.

I dislike North Korea for many reasons but I'm not going to let that bias my judgement in a situation. If South Korea wants to invade and conquer North Korea go for it but if North Korea is defending itself and standing it's ground even in for 'exercise' don't expect me to cry foul play.

As well no civilians were killed just 2 soldiers (in South Korea) so if any civilians DID die it would be North Koreans from the artillery exchange that occurred from the south. So this how it went:

South Korea planned a military exercise in known disputed territory.
North Korea says no, do not conduct a military exercise in this territory.
South Korea says, lol stop me and conducts their exercise which involved firing of weapons in said disputed territory.
North Korea retaliates against South Korea.
South Korea retaliates against North Korea for it's retaliation.

People died. Now if we go all the way back from who was wrong who was right the first wrong which started everything was South Korea conducting the exercise in the disputed territory after being told not to.

You bet your bottom dollar that if America had some disputed territory with another nation and was at war with that nation and that nation conducted a military exercise in the water that the American army would **** those people up. Straight away.
 
  • #27
g33kski11z said:
eh, I don't agree completely. If we are allies with a country & we want bases there (and the 'host nation' has no issue) I see no reason we shouldn't ...

I do agree we shouldn't be the 'world police', but as a super power, we do have some obligation to try and 'keep peace' were we can..

Completely disagree. We are not a superpower, and we have no obligation to try and "keep peace." Where does this supposed "obligation" come from? Also, what is the definition of "superpower," and why does the US qualify?

I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.

There was a point in this country's history where we didn't even keep a standing army in our own country. Now we keep a standing army during peacetime in other peoples countries.

And I pay for it with my taxes. Wonderful.
 
  • #28
zomgwtf said:
It makes a whole world of difference. Coupled by the fact that they are (for the 3rd time) in a war with each other still.

snip

At war, sure. But isn't the "retaliation" for the exercises a violation of the Korean Armistice Agreement?
 
  • #29
Astronuc said:
Then again, the US has forces in SK, so they are kind of stuck in the middle of this situation.

And - S. Korea Could Seek Deployment of US Tactical Nuclear Weapons !
http://www.voanews.com/english/news...of-US-Tactical-Nuclear-Weapons-109819069.html

I don't know if that statement precipitated the NK's artillery bombardment, or was in response to the attack.

Way to escalate conflict. :frown:
It seems to me that the time and place for surprised or frown faces was earlier:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-is-worst-against-civilians-in-20-years.html
Telegraph said:
A South Korean soldier was killed and 13 others injured after North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells onto a South Korean island setting more than 60 houses ablaze and sending civilians fleeing in terror.

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53094520101123
Nov 2010 said:
(Reuters) - The reported sighting of more than 1,000 centrifuges at North Korea's main nuclear complex appears to confirm it is working to create a second source of arms-grade nuclear material.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P30E20100326
Mar 26 said:
(Reuters) - A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea, killing some of the more than 100 crew on board,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/09/n_korea_nuke_test/
Register said:
North Korea this morning carried out a successful underground test of a nuclear weapon, news agencies report.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E3DD1538F933A1575BC0A96F958260
NYT said:
UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 19— North Korea appears to be emerging from a prolonged severe famine with the help of international food aid, but four terrible years of hunger from 1995 through 1998 may have cost the country two million to three million lives,

and NOT in response to the first action likely to have any real effect on N. Korea and its sponsor, China.
 
  • #30
Jack21222 said:
I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.

Our presence is keeping at least a few countries from being invaded. Japan would be in big trouble if we removed our troops, I think SK as well. If NK attacks SK with our troops inside, NK knows they are finished real quick.

Jack21222 said:
And I pay for it with my taxes. Wonderful.

Keeping peace and standing up for freedom, yeah what a horrible thing to spend money on. I don't get the American attitude of hoarding everything for ourselves and building a dome over our country. We are all globally in this together. We are all brothers and sisters.
 
  • #31
Jack21222 said:
Completely disagree. We are not a superpower, and we have no obligation to try and "keep peace." Where does this supposed "obligation" come from? Also, what is the definition of "superpower," and why does the US qualify?

I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.
Misinformation. The US did not just 'plant' a base in S. Korea.
 
  • #32
Newai said:
At war, sure. But isn't the "retaliation" for the exercises a violation of the Korean Armistice Agreement?

Perhaps South Korea broke it by attacking North Korean territory especially after warnings not to.
 
  • #33
I just want to make it clear that I would fully support an attack on North Korea assuming it would be done effectively and without much collateral damage. However I'm not going to be mad or sad when South Korea is basically taunting them or prodding them knowing the North will respond.

Perhaps the North should have shown restraint but they didn't and in my view they have the right in this particular situation to make that decision.
 
  • #34
zomgwtf said:
...
As well no civilians were killed just 2 soldiers (in South Korea) so if any civilians DID die it would be North Koreans from the artillery exchange that occurred from the south.
13 others were injured and 60 houses were set on fire.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-is-worst-against-civilians-in-20-years.html

So this how it went:

South Korea planned a military exercise in known disputed territory.
Disputed? Very well, the territory in which you reside is disputed by me. If you enter it again tonight I'll take that as deliberate antagonism and lob a few shells in there.
 
  • #35
zomgwtf said:
Perhaps South Korea broke it by attacking North Korean territory especially after warnings not to.

What NK territory did the South attack?
 

Similar threads

News Why is the US ignoring the violence in Syria while intervening in Libya?
2
Replies
61
Views
21K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
2K
News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
Replies
31
Views
5K
News Downing Street - New memos released
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • Sticky
Physics Forums Global Guidelines
Replies
2
Views
497K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top