[quote]Last month’s deadly sinking of a South Korean naval ship was caused by a North Korean torpedo, a news report said today, adding to pressure on the South’s President. Lee Myung Bak, to respond to one of the worst acts of military provocation since the Korean War.
The South Korean defence ministry declined to comment on the claim by the Yonhap news agency, the latest in a series of reports suggesting that the mysterious sinking of the naval corvette, Cheonan, on March 26 was a deliberate and unprovoked attack by North Korea.
[…]
“Military intelligence made the report to the Blue House [the presidential palace] and defence ministry immediately after the sinking of the Cheonan that it is clearly the work of North Korea’s military,” an unnamed military source was quoted as telling Yonhap. “North Korean submarines are all armed with heavy torpedoes with 200kg warheads. It is the military intelligence’s assessment that the North attacked with a heavy torpedo.” [/quote]
I doubt it as I seriously think the South Koreans aren’t interested in seeing how much old artillery can be laid down on Seoul especially with a US president with a poor reputation for dealing with allies. Then there is the S. Korean industrial zone in North Korea.
I’d suggest a quiet termination of South Korean aid and everything stays quiet.
My thoughts:
The Norks are testing the Obama admin for the Chinese, think of it as a precursor to Taiwan not signing the ECFA.
North and South Korea are still at war, so there need not be additional recriminations here.
Knocking over that stupid tower in PyongYang, or placing a guided missile into the loungeroom of every mega mansion in the elite zone might be a good answer, though.
But if they declare it an NK torp, then don’t retaliate (because the risks are so great), then they don’t exactly look strong, do they? So I’m not convinced they actually have such incentive.
But if they declare it an NK torp, then don’t retaliate (because the risks are so great), then they don’t exactly look strong, do they? So I’m not convinced they actually have such incentive.[/quote]
Yep that’s the issue. President Lee and his party campaigned that the “Sunshine” policy was a failure as the North continued missile tests, it strained relations with the US and helped prop up the North Korean regime with food and money. If they back down, they’ll look incredibly weak to the North Koreans. If the S. Koreans don’t want to react, it would be better for them to claim the North Koreans had nothing to do with the vessel sinking. This forces the government’s hand; respond or back down.
I do get the feeling that NK is moving into the endgame now. The Dear Leader isn’t going to last much longer and the military are not going to accept the son educated in Switzerland as the next leader. China does not want Korea unified if it means having another democracy on it’s border.
It’s hard to imagine anything but tragedy coming out of this.
[quote]After investigators from Australia, Britain, Sweden and the US pieced together portions of the ship, South Korea has now reportedly reached the conclusion North Korea was responsible for the attack and will formally blame Pyongyang on Thursday.
According to The Washington Post, analyses showed that torpedo was identical to a North Korean torpedo previously obtained by South Korea.
After presenting the report to China and other nations, South Korea will then lobby the UN Security Council to take up the issue and tighten sanctions on North Korea. The US has indicated it would support such action.
[/quote]
I don’t think the Security Council will actually come to a resolution unless South Korea, or her allies, have found some form of leverage over China. China will just veto the resolution and any sanctions are DOA.
Next time there is a confrontation, and there will be a next time, I don’t see SK backing down with the North Koreans. Sit, wait and watch the peaceful implosion of NK would be the best option, but if NK keep provoking and attacking, the South Koreans will respond with force.
[quote=“lbksig”]I don’t see SK backing down with the North Koreans. Sit, wait and watch the peaceful implosion of NK would be the best option, but if NK keep provoking and attacking, the South Koreans will respond with force.
[/quote]
I don’t know. Either option has major downsides. Letting NK implode sounds like the easy way out, but the South is mindful of Germany’s ongoing problems in incorporating a bankrupt ex-communist regime, and knows it doesn’t have the financial muscle of a confederation like the EU to back it up.
A military move may easily bring China back into the fight. Beijing’s increasingly tough stance against the West is not supported by the public but in part driven by it. I can see public opinion demanding that the US’s running dogs in the South be pushed back rather than be allowed to take over one of China’s staunchest allies, and as I said above, the last thing China wants is another democracy on it’s border, especially one with an American security guarantee.
I think the Chinese are likely to try and maintain the status quo and protect NK’s ability to do it’s own dirty work, like threatening Japan and giving the US another problem to worry about.
Meanwhile, China is miffed with S. Korea for being upset the North torpedoed their ship. Just like the attitude toward Taiwan; if you’d just stop complaining we’d all get along much better.
[quote=“redwagon”]
I don’t know. Either option has major downsides. Letting NK implode sounds like the easy way out, but the South is mindful of Germany’s ongoing problems in incorporating a bankrupt ex-communist regime, and knows it doesn’t have the financial muscle of a confederation like the EU to back it up.
A military move may easily bring China back into the fight. Beijing’s increasingly tough stance against the West is not supported by the public but in part driven by it. I can see public opinion demanding that the US’s running dogs in the South be pushed back rather than be allowed to take over one of China’s staunchest allies, and as I said above, the last thing China wants is another democracy on it’s border, especially one with an American security guarantee.
I think the Chinese are likely to try and maintain the status quo and protect NK’s ability to do it’s own dirty work, like threatening Japan and giving the US another problem to worry about.
Meanwhile, China is miffed with S. Korea for being upset the North torpedoed their ship. Just like the attitude toward Taiwan; if you’d just stop complaining we’d all get along much better.[/quote]
I don’t see the American security guarantee continuing if North Korea implodes and is integrated into South Korea. The only reason we have troops there in the first place is because of the North Korean threat. After that threat is gone, the South Koreans (especially in Seoul) would want their prime real estate back. No threat = no need for an American presence. With the threat now there are protestors against the American forces there. Imagine what the protests will be like if there is no threat?
I think you’re spot on about the cost factor of integrating NK. Now I’m not quite sure how much help the EU has been in bridging the gap between former East Germany and West Germany. To me it seems that most of the money that would have been used to help the citizens located in former East Germany has been siphoned off to support profligate Greek politicians. However the point is valid that it’s expensive. The wealth disparity between the two Koreas is so vast that just bringing the North Koreans up to South Korean poverty level will be a challenge. God only knows how malnourished the average citizen is outside of Pyongyang. There will be serious health problems to deal with among 90% of the NK population. With all that though, the outcome of a war where NK is defeated is magnitudes worse than them imploding due to bickering over who the next Great Leader is.
I agree, but it also depends on how safe a newly reunited Korea feels with the PLA there across the new frontier. China is going to do whatever it can to avoid an integration if that means democracy and rule from Seoul, with a regime friendly to the US.
[quote=“lbksig”]Now I’m not quite sure how much help the EU has been in bridging the gap between former East Germany and West Germany.
[/quote]
Imagine if Germany had had to print extra Marks to pay for the integration… it would have faced hyperinflation. As it was they broke their limits in the Euro zone. S. Korea has no such backup and NK is in a far worse state than the GDR was when the Soviets pulled the rug from under Honecker in terms of economic potential, infrastructure, the health and education of it’s people, you name it.
[quote=“lbksig”]With all that though, the outcome of a war where NK is defeated is magnitudes worse than them imploding due to bickering over who the next Great Leader is.
[/quote]
I cannot imagine the Chinese sitting back and doing nothing in case the North was overrun by S. Korean and US forces, no matter who started the fight. I’m quite sure there would be a re-run of the Korean War. I believe they will support the most hardline NK military candidate to surface in the inevitable power struggle after Kim Jong-Il either dies or is unable to hold things together, and support NK as a client one-party state indefinitely.
Seoul: North Korea did it, here is the evidence.
Beijing: But there is no evidence that they did it, Pyongyang has given us their assurances.
Seoul: Here is the evidence, do you want to take a look at it?
Beijing: But Pyongyang has assured us they didn’t do it.
This could get real interesting. Lets look at the current treaty obligations,
China is obligated to North Korea, The US is obligated to South Korea. The US is also obligated to close neighbors Japan and Taiwan. Knowing this, it would make sense for the Generals in China to plan for a quick attack on Japan and Taiwan. They can not afford to let the US have such close bases of operation.
In fact, isn’t this a similar scenario to WW1. One assassination led to most of the world being involved through treaties.
Been seeing a lot more activity at the air base this past week. How about over on the west coast, anyone noticed it over there?
If anything, this is yet more proof that you have to at least consider taking out Iran’s nuclear development facilities (uranium enrichment and otherwise). Once a country gets a bomb, it’s not just about “will they attack someone” or “will they sell tech to another bad country”, it’s the fact you can’t barely do anything against them anymore. Nothing except little at the edges shit. I’m not happy about Israel bombing the facilities, and I’m not happy that the US really doesn’t have the people to get involved, and I despise what W did with Iraq ruining our chances to do something about a real enemy - Iranian leadership and revolutionary guards… But at some point enough is enough, isn’t it?