solarz
Brigadier
The question is, would a military response, even with US support, be possible? No one wants to see a repeat of the Korean War.
And if we rule out a military response, what other options would SK have?
The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
The question is, would a military response, even with US support, be possible? No one wants to see a repeat of the Korean War.
And if we rule out a military response, what other options would SK have?
last thing SK wants is 1.war 2.sudden collapse of Kim regime. in that order
dont let the bravado of kor nationalists and western neo conservatives fool you, while most of SK desire reunification, most want it at their own way.
Astute kor watchers will tell you east-west germany style reunification isn't what SK wants. they are used to their rich comfortable lives and dont want millions of poor NK refugees flooding in to the south to destroy their current standard of living and set them back for decades. SK are patriotic but they are if not more realistic.
what most of SK like to see is NK developing like her communist neighbor china and maybe vietnam so that when reunification finally occurs, the gap between the 2 kor economies will be much closer than it is now, which anyone will know, is completely ridiculous.
NK knows that and is using it against SK. i think SK knows that NK knows too.
kim maybe mad, but he is certainly no dummy.
Last edited:
the usual stuff: rebuke, withdraw aid and econ cooperation for time being, UN sanctions, maybe cease 6 party talks temporarily
solarz
Brigadier
The usual stuff for having a military ship attacked and sank? I don't think that would go over very well with the public...
for the sake of avoiding full blown war in the region and displeasing china because she is obligated to help NK, yes the public will swallow that pill. the family of the deceased on the other hand....
Perhaps something the the US Navy Operation Preying Mantis against the Iranians in the 1980s. Sink a few small NK ships or subs in a show of force.
And then watch as the North Koreans launch nuclear/conventional missiles against U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan?
From what I can see, if indeed NK are responsible for the sinking of the SK ship (which up till now, I highly doubt), I think both US and SK will downplay the news... even cover it out so as to avoid an all out war with NK, unless they actually know for sure that other nations such as China and Russia will not be involved in it.
And I believe up till now, no one is sure of China's reaction to a war in NK... there are chances that China will do nothing (unlike in the past), but there are chances that China will jump again. Plus we also have a big unknown - Russia... what would Russia's reaction be?
And I believe up till now, no one is sure of China's reaction to a war in NK... there are chances that China will do nothing (unlike in the past), but there are chances that China will jump again. Plus we also have a big unknown - Russia... what would Russia's reaction be?
Well I was imagining that South Korean forces would do it, considering South Korea was attacked in what it recognizes as South Korean waters, only South Koreans died, and the South Korean armed forces are now in the lead role in the defense of their own nation.
While we have to imagine nuclear retaliation as a possibility, it is quite unlikely considering it would result in the certain elimination of North Korea and the Kim regime. The Kim regime's main priority is it's own survival, so, if South Korea takes limited, eye-for-an-eye military retaliation and kills some North Korean sailors, Kim is faced with a choice. As I see it he has 3 options. He can A) Hoot and holler, and call South Korea and America all sorts of names, possibly withdraw from talks, and play it up in internal propaganda B) Escalate with some form of conventional military action, or C) do what you suggested and fire nuclear weapons.
Now of those options, option A is the most likely to assure the continued survival of the Kim regime. Option B is less likely because it leaves open a path to war which will destroy the Kim regime. Option C ensures the Kim regime's destruction. So since we more or less know that North Korea's #1 strategic imperative is to maintain the status quo, we can be reasonably certain that it will pick option A. It enables them to play the victim and spread propaganda without actually threatening survival.
Furthermore, South Korea has sunk North Korean ships before and killed over 100 NK sailors in sea border clashes since 2000 and North Korea never got too crazy over those. There have been much larger land border infiltrations by North Korea that did not lead to full scale war, so I see no reason why limited retaliation should.
Lastly, I think military retaliation would show North Korea that getting the bomb has not left it invulnerable to punishment. If South Korea does not retaliate, they risk allowing the North to think that nukes are an invincible shield behind which they can provoke endlessly without any consequences. If the South disabused Kim (or whoever is in charge in Pyongyang) of that notion, then it might actually make disarmament more likely, because the North will realize it's nukes aren't worth as much as it thought.