NK Attack on SK: International Community Response Needed

[WhoWee]

Some possible insight - Tensions on the Korean peninsula: What you need to know
[PLAIN]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101123/ts_yblog_thelookout/tensions-on-the-korean-peninsula-what-you-need-to-know

I certainly haven't verified any of that article, so reader beware.


The US has had a strategic interest in the Western Pacific since 1940-1945, and 1950-1953, the latter being the Korean War. There is a practical interest in maintaining a peace.

I recommend reviewing the last 600 years of history of the nations in that area, and then compare that period with the last 60 years with US presence.

From the article...

[PLAIN]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101123/ts_yblog_thelookout/tensions-on-the-korean-peninsula-what-you-need-to-know


"Some analysts have linked Tuesday's action by the North to the impoverished nation's need for food. The Obama administration has refused to remove sanctions against the North, imposed in response to its nuclear program. "They see that they can't pressure Washington, so they've taken South Korea hostage again," Choi Jin-wook, a senior researcher with the South Korean Institute for National Unification, told the New York Times. "They're in a desperate situation, and they want food immediately, not next year.""

This is what happens when the people don't have a voice.

 

[mheslep]

Whitehouse - China needs to step up:

A White House official tells ABC News that the U.S. is going to spend a great deal of effort trying to get China to take a more “robust” stand against North Korea’s actions.

“We need to send a strong signal to the Chinese that they need to stand up to North Korea,” the official says, adding that Russia’s statement condemning this attack was much stronger than after the North Koreans sank the ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) in March 2010.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/white-house-official-china-needs-to-do-more-us-south-korea-joint-military-exercises-possible-in-comi.html

And from China: nothing.

SEOUL, Nov. 23 (Yonhap) -- In a meeting with South Korea's foreign minister on Tuesday, the top Chinese envoy in Seoul refrained from elaborating on his country's position concerning a North Korean artillery attack that killed two South Korean marines, an official here said.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/11/23/33/0301000000AEN20101123014100315F.HTML

I think encouraging Japan to go nuclear and possibly providing tactical nuclear weapons to S.K. is the only think likely to get the Chinese to finally turn off the tap to N. Korea.

 

[mugaliens]

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

Unfortunately, we're on the third generation of N. Korean generals since the uneasy truce began in this Korean War, and the current crop hasn't a clue as to the ravages of war, nor how badly beaten the North was before we pulled back south to the DMZ.

 

[Office_Shredder]

, nor how badly beaten the North was before we pulled back south to the DMZ.

You mean before we were routed by China and forced to retreat?

 

[WhoWee]

You mean before we were routed by China and forced to retreat?

Are you suggesting the US should have engaged China fully?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Are you suggesting the US should have engaged China fully?

No, I'm suggesting we remember history accurately. Why should North Korea look back on the Korean war and tremble at our military might, when it's very possible the exact same scenario of China entering a war if we start one will happen again?

 

[WhoWee]

No, I'm suggesting we remember history accurately. Why should North Korea look back on the Korean war and tremble at our military might, when it's very possible the exact same scenario of China entering a war if we start one will happen again?

I think a second Korean War would be China's worst nightmare. It would disrupt their economy and any aggression towards the US on their part would certainly impede their (economic) growth in the West.

The N Korean puppet dance provides China leverage and frames their importance - war would paint them in a different light.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok, a little bit of not following the news mixed with a bit of being Canadian, but...

I thought this was a post about someone nuking Saskatchewan...

 

[BobG]

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.

If the territory is disputed, then both sides are claiming the territory belongs to them. In other words, your sequence should be restated:

South Korea planned a military exercise in S Korean territory.
North Korea says no, do not conduct a military exercise in N Korean territory.
South Korea says this is S Korean territory and we can do what we please in our own territory.
North Korea retaliates against South Korea.
South Korea retaliates against North Korea for it's retaliation.

If one conducts military exercises in disputed territories, they shouldn't be shocked if the other side reacts. On the other hand, not conducting military exercises there is a concession that the other side does have some legitimate claim.

 

[zomgwtf]

Ok I agree BobG. Thanks that does make it much clearer for those asking for evidence supporting that this is N Korean territory. I don't feel I need to provide evidence to support this as N Korea made it clear that it felt that was it's territory. (it's even mentioned in the original article)

And no it's not a simple 'claim everything is their territory' I am pretty sure this area is well known disputed territory.

 

[jobyts]

You need to do some research before you post again in this thread. The US is not the only country with foreign bases.

To correct Jack21222's argument, US is the only country to have placed nuclear weapons on the foreign bases. Many countries have military bases in foreign countries.

 

[WhoWee]

To correct Jack21222's argument, US is the only country to have placed nuclear weapons on the foreign bases. Many countries have military bases in foreign countries.

Nothing like a stroll down memory lane...
http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/04-cuban-missile-crisis-timeline.htm

 

[zomgwtf]

Nothing like a stroll down memory lane...
http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/04-cuban-missile-crisis-timeline.htm

Cuba still has Russian missiles? This is a legit question.

Anyways that's kind of the point I believe Jack is making. Look at the fit that USA had when it found out that Cuba had Russian missiles. It should be expected that other countries will act similar when they have American missiles/bases close by.

But he was wrong in saying that USA is the only nation to put military bases in other countries for a mutual benefit. Even Canada has military bases overseas.

 

[WhoWee]

Cuba still has Russian missiles? This is a legit question.

Anyways that's kind of the point I believe Jack is making. Look at the fit that USA had when it found out that Cuba had Russian missiles. It should be expected that other countries will act similar when they have American missiles/bases close by.

But he was wrong in saying that USA is the only nation to put military bases in other countries for a mutual benefit. Even Canada has military bases overseas.

I agree with your overview. As for a base, a very mobile nuclear armed sub makes the whole discussion irrelevant.

 

[mheslep]

The S.K. military drills, to which N.K. say they were responding, were apparently not held on Yeonpyeong Island. N.K. chose unilaterally to fire on Y. Island where it's well known that a couple thousand civilians reside.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/opinion/24wed1.html?_r=1

 

[Gokul43201]

So even if they are not legally at fault, it seems like the RoK is at least partly to blame for jump-starting this mess. They go about on some kind of exhibition of bravado (albeit one which they are well within their rights to do) and essentially spit on the ground near a rabid dog. DPRK reacts in a completely unreasonable manner, as rabid dogs are won't to do, by shelling an island of villagers!

Clearly an avoidable situation.

 

[drankin]

So even if they are not legally at fault, it seems like the RoK is at least partly to blame for jump-starting this mess. They go about on some kind of exhibition of bravado (albeit one which they are well within their rights to do) and essentially spit on the ground near a rabid dog. DPRK reacts in a completely unreasonable manner, as rabid dogs are won't to do, by shelling an island of villagers!

Clearly an avoidable situation.

That's kind of like saying I should be partly to blame for being mugged if I go to an ATM machine. I could have clearly avoided the situation by not going to the machine in the first place.

Military exercises are just that. SK was practicing artillery strikes. Sure, it was a show of force but there were no NK targets. I would argue that it was not a provocation. It was not intended to draw fire from NK.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's kind of like saying I should be partly to blame for being mugged if I go to an ATM machine. I could have clearly avoided the situation by not going to the machine in the first place.

That's a poor analogy. This is more like you driving past all the ATMs in your neighborhood and deciding to use to the one in Chinatown ... while wearing this T-shirt (which, of course, you are fully within your rights to do).

RoK has a lot of water on all sides to shoot into. Are we supposed to believe that their decision to fire shells right outside the DPRK coastline was not meant to provoke a reaction?

Let's not create a false dichotomy here. There's nothing inconsistent about denouncing DPRK's barbaric response, while also scolding RoK for their immaturity.

 

[mheslep]

Gokul - I think the better analogy is posting armed Immigration agents at the US border, which is also seen as provocative (by Mexico), but necessary unless the US effectively cedes the border.

In the case of the Koreas, the S.K. border area military exercises such as they are (lobbing a few rounds from a few guns), pose zero actual military threat of invasion to N.K. What they do accomplish is signal that the S.K. is fully sovereign over the territory, and will protect it if invaded. If S.K. decides to never do any military exercises in the areas that are in fact theirs by international law but disputed by the nut across the border, shrinking back to the South so as not to offend, then in all likelihood they effectively cede the disputed territory to the nut. Yes border exercises can be seen as provocative when living next to a desperate nut, but to draw a border line in these conditions, and then not toe up to the line, is no border at all.

 

[zomgwtf]

I never stated that the island that NK shot was disputed territory, the area which the SK conducted its exercise WAS though. So I find South Korea to blame in all of this.

Although North Koreas reaction was pretty extreme. Everyone is concentrated on South Korea needing to 'prove the territory is its' so why can't the North respond to attacks to defend its claim?

 

[Newai]

Why does it matter? If we're talking rights here, Dear Leader Kim Jong-il is the bad boy who should have shells flying his way. You want to argue over this volley during war, when it's clear just where the wrong side of the line is?

 

[mheslep]

Given the recent https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3000434&postcount=29", SK has demonstrated restraint in the extreme. So:

So even if they are not legally at fault, it seems like the RoK is at least partly to blame for jump-starting this mess.

no I disagree,

They go about on some kind of exhibition of bravado (albeit one which they are well within their rights to do) and essentially spit on the ground near a rabid dog. DPRK reacts in a completely unreasonable manner, as rabid dogs are won't to do, by shelling an island of villagers!

Clearly an avoidable situation.

and no, not by SK anyway.

 

[zomgwtf]

Why does it matter? If we're talking rights here, Dear Leader Kim Jong-il is the bad boy who should have shells flying his way. You want to argue over this volley during war, when it's clear just where the wrong side of the line is?

Then fly shells his way? Just don't say it's their fault when they fight back. That's stupid talk.

If you want to prod them and they shoot back that's your fault, entirely. If you want to attack them YOU bear the responsibility not North Korea.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's not clear to me if the shells fired by RoK landed in RoK territorial waters also claimed by DPRK, or if they landed in international waters near the DPRK coast, and I think that makes a difference. I've been thinking it was the latter.

Nevertheless, I just read that RoK in fact informed DPRK about the exercise in advance, so in my eyes, that absolves them of essentially all the immaturity I claimed they exhibited, with just a little room for doubt, pending clarification to the query raised in the paragraph above.

 

[mheslep]

I never stated that the island that NK shot was disputed territory, the area which the SK conducted its exercise WAS though. So I find South Korea to blame in all of this.

Although North Koreas reaction was pretty extreme. Everyone is concentrated on South Korea needing to 'prove the territory is its' so why can't the North respond to attacks to defend its claim?

SK has nothing to prove regards borders. The territory belongs to the them from the armistice in the last century. SK fails to actively show sovereignty over the territory, and NK thugs will grab it, as thugs do. That's hardly bravado, given several hundred dead SK sailors this year already. Next we'd see Seoul as 'disputed' territory, and such a forecast is not hyperbole. Denying that history demonstrates further aggression as the likely outcome of shrinking back to the South would be the hyperbole.

 

[Newai]

Then fly shells his way? Just don't say it's their fault when they fight back. That's stupid talk.

If you want to prod them and they shoot back that's your fault, entirely. If you want to attack them YOU bear the responsibility not North Korea.

You can call it prodding. But it is a war. And given what their Dear Leader is, that's a responsibility I wouldn't lose sleep over.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a poor analogy. This is more like you driving past all the ATMs in your neighborhood and deciding to use to the one in Chinatown ... while wearing this T-shirt (which, of course, you are fully within your rights to do).

RoK has a lot of water on all sides to shoot into. Are we supposed to believe that their decision to fire shells right outside the DPRK coastline was not meant to provoke a reaction?

Let's not create a false dichotomy here. There's nothing inconsistent about denouncing DPRK's barbaric response, while also scolding RoK for their immaturity.

it would only be reasonable to call it an 'immature provacation' if it wasn't an entirely normal/ordinary occurrence. Your characterization is unreasonable. Heck, us and the Russians are STILL doing that kind of thing, 20 years after the cold war ended!

 

[Gokul43201]

it would only be reasonable to call it an 'immature provacation' if it wasn't an entirely normal/ordinary occurrence. Your characterization is unreasonable. Heck, us and the Russians are STILL doing that kind of thing, 20 years after the cold war ended!

I haven't yet found an article that tells me enough about the exercise, or indicates that it was a normal occurrence. Do you have a link for me to read? The article that mh linked upthread seemed to suggest quite the opposite:

The attack on Yeonpyeong Island occurred after South Korean forces on exercises fired test shots into waters near the North Korean coast. We hope South Korea’s president is asking who came up with that idea. ​

 

[Astronuc]

NKorea warns region is on brink of war
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_clash

Some background/analysis

Why border hot-spot is Korean War relic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11839284?OCID=fbwin

 

[leroyjenkens]

Why does the US attack Iraq merely on the suspicion of having WMD's and enriching uranium, but doesn't attack North Korea when we know they have WMD's and we know they're enriching uranium and they're attacking our allies?

 

[Astronuc]

Why does the US attack Iraq merely on the suspicion of having WMD's and enriching uranium, but doesn't attack North Korea when we know they have WMD's and we know they're enriching uranium and they're attacking our allies?

Firstly - NK would likely pound SK, particularly the Seoul area, so striking at NK would likely cause significant loss of life and injury to ally SK.

Secondly - NK is on the border with China and Russia, and both nations would be rather distressed, China moreso, if the US invaded and occupied NK.

Thirdly - the US economy couldn't handle the cost.

 

[WhoWee]

Why does the US attack Iraq merely on the suspicion of having WMD's and enriching uranium, but doesn't attack North Korea when we know they have WMD's and we know they're enriching uranium and they're attacking our allies?

I think you've over-simplified the Iraq situation. This is from 1998 - 3 years before the "attack" on iraq.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

"Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would nolonger cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectorscalled UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozensof countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraqscapability to retain, create and use weapons of massdestruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuildthat capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago atthe end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroyits arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to setthis requirement. Other countries possesses weapons of massdestruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is onebig difference He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during adecadelong war. Not only against soldiers, but againstcivilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, SaudiArabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy,but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians inNorthern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I haveno doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will usethese terrible weapons again.

"

As for Korea, thus far conflicts have been contained. However, if the US troops are threatened the situation could change very quickly - let's hope cooler heads prevail.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Obama-Pays-Tribute-to-US-Troops-in-Korea-107195463.html
Let's also not forget that President Obama recently visited the area and at a minimum now has a first hand exposure/experience/knowledge of conditions on the ground.

 

[Astronuc]

China works to ease North-South Korea tension
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11850821

On Friday, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met the North's ambassador in person, and spoke on the phone to his US and South Korean counterparts, according to a statement carried by the state-run Xinhua news agency.
. . . .
The forthcoming four-day US-South Korea naval manoeuvres were organised well ahead of this week's attack, but they have angered both North Korea and China.

Beijing has warned against any infractions into its exclusive economic zone, which extends 320km (200 miles) from China's coast.
. . . .

China makes a move.

 

[mugaliens]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_clash" on the part of their "dear leader" who has forced more people into graves from avoidable starvation than anyone else this century.

The problem is, for 57 years, every time baby wants some attention, he's rattled his cage, and unfortunately, the powers that be have reinforced that behavior by giving in. Unfortunately, he's so self-absorbed and so isolated, he's never learned that's not the way grown-ups conduct business. As a result, he and three generations of N. Koreans think he's a demi-god, while the rest of the world sees the emporer for what he is: a naked baby crying because his diaper is dirty.

Folks, this isn't an attack on N. Korean leadership. It's how things really are up there, only in deference to impute some measure of dignity to KJI, the world leaders call it "saber rattling" instead of "baby rattling." At least this round they've learned to say "no" to baby and aren't giving into his demands for a six-nation roundtable.

Hopefully, they'll hold out until baby learns to grow up a little.

 

[rootX]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_clash" on the part of their "dear leader" who has forced more people into graves from avoidable starvation than anyone else this century.

The problem is, for 57 years, every time baby wants some attention, he's rattled his cage, and unfortunately, the powers that be have reinforced that behavior by giving in. Unfortunately, he's so self-absorbed and so isolated, he's never learned that's not the way grown-ups conduct business. As a result, he and three generations of N. Koreans think he's a demi-god, while the rest of the world sees the emporer for what he is: a naked baby crying because his diaper is dirty.

Folks, this isn't an attack on N. Korean leadership. It's how things really are up there, only in deference to impute some measure of dignity to KJI, the world leaders call it "saber rattling" instead of "baby rattling." At least this round they've learned to say "no" to baby and aren't giving into his demands for a six-nation roundtable.

Hopefully, they'll hold out until baby learns to grow up a little.

You are doing propaganda; nonetheless, how we perceive NK leader (either saber or baby) doesn't change anything.

Saying "no" is not the best solution. Opening NK to the world is what's being desired.