And of course, North Korea needs to start being responsible.

NK did it because there is an extremely low chance there will be aby retaliation, and the conflict with the South is used to help justify the way they repress their population

@ Furball:

1. South Korea is not a member of NATO. Nor is North Korea. Why do you mention NATO?

2. "we can't call this an attack" - Why not? North Korea deliberately fired a number of artillery shells at a populated island in South Korea's territory. How is that NOT an attack?

North Korea has always puzzled me. It is only a little smaller than Greece, with twice the population, at around 24 million. Almost two thirds of the economy is based in industry. From my perspective, a week or two of sustained shelling and bombing and missile-ing, North Korea, would devastate it. It could be a pile of rubble in a short time. Their behavior has never seemed prudent to me.

Their behaviour is irrelevant. They are a vassal state of china. They can do as they please as long as they don't let McDonalds into the country. Shame, they really do look hungry!

Probably just trying to up the ante and get the USA back to the table to offer them more in return for giving up their nuclear plans. Paranoid delusional rat in a corner.

The problem isn't taking them down; the problem is the damage they'd do on the way out. They have a huge number of dug in artillery guns aimed at Seoul - a number that would taking them all out before they could fire to be... challenging.

It's a good strategy, given the limitations faced by the North. They can't really stop anyone from wiping them out, but they can do a massive amount of destruction before they were flattened. It's basically a non-nuclear version of MAD.

And hence the reason they can get away with shit like this. There aren't exactly a lot of ways you *can* hurt the NK leadership that aren't already covered by the existing sanctions, and the poor bastards who live there can barely feed themselves - lashing out at them in hope that they'll take it out on Shorty is futile. So the ability of the south to retaliate is limited by the fact Seoul is held hostage. Since there are very few ways the *North* can retaliate if things escalate, the South has a (reasonable) fear of pushing them to the wall.

In other words, the North is too *weak* to threaten, because they have so little that they can lose - and they know and exploit this.

The answer to the question 'what should we do' is, basically, 'whatever the South wants'. *They're* the ones who will face the consequences if things get ugly, so they should have our support, but not our insistence that Big Brother knows what is best for you.

I dont see it escalating at all, any military confrontation would be a pointless waste. the current situation will remain until china overtakes uncle sam as the regional power. dont hold yer breath on that one!

The Chinese media suggests that the DPRK fired in response to the provocation provided by South Korean military exercises on their border, that they had specifically requested prior not to take place:

PYONGYANG, Nov. 23 (Xinhua) -- The army of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) countered South Korean artillery firing with "determined military measures" on Tuesday afternoon, the official news agency KCNA reported.

The annonucement was made in a statement issued by the Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army (KPA) of the DPRK, said the report.

According to the KCNA, South Korea insisted on hold military exercises ignoring the repeated warning of the DPRK and shot toward the waters of DPRK with dozens of shells around Yonphyong Islet at 1:00 o'clock p.m. local time on Tuesday afternoon.

The KPA immediately beat back to the South Korean military provocation with determined military measures....

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-11/23/c_13618991.htm

The real question is, why did the South Koreans go on with military exercises on the border despite North Korean strong requests that they do not take place?

Who stands to gain from this event, and did the South Koreans not see this coming?

"The real question is, why did the South Koreans go on with military exercises on the border despite North Korean strong requests that they do not take place? "


uhhh... the whole "you sank my corvette and killed my sailors" thing?

Re: the Corvette thing - it has yet to be proved.

There are accusations from South Korea backed by western powers (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Sweden) that the ship (I assume you are referring to the Cheonan) was sunk by North Korea.

North Korea has consistently denied any involvement.

Who stands to gain from this event?

How many North Korean soldiers and civilians died as a result of these South Korean exercises? None. North Korea's "retaliation" killed two South Korean marines and injured several others, including some civilians.
South Korea is continuing to supply humanitarian aid to North Korea, and continues to avoid military escalation, in spite of repeated North Korean attacks that have killed South Koreans. Forgive me if I don't shed any tears over North Korea's "strong requests" and South Korea's refusal to honor them.

Ok, first off, anyone who buys the crap coming out of North Korea is an idiot. They're still claiming record harvests when they have to import millions of tons of food to stave off mass starvation. They're about as reliable a source as Fox News.

Secondly, even if you buy their version of events, you asked why the South was holding maneuvers, and the answer is 'among other reasons, the sinking of the Cheonan'. That's the reason they stepped up military exercises.

Who stands to gain from this event? The North, duh. They are constantly pulling "look at me look at me grrr I'm mean, now give me food and power and I'll go away for awhile" crap like this.

Can I clarify that I understand you correctly, flying penguin:

1. You believe that because the retaliation caused the South more damage, that the South cannot be to blame. If one were to take this logic to the 'war on terror'...

2- You state that the South is avoiding escalation but didn't make reference to the fact that the South decided to conduct military exercises near the North Korean border despite protests from the North Koreans (which doesn't make sense if non-escalation is their aim). This weakens your argument.

3- You make reference to repeated North Korean attacks that have killed South Koreans. Could you explain how they are relevant to this case, and how they should in any way influence how we should interpret the current event?

The North might stand to gain from this event, perhaps in the way you articulated, Mr Stratagos.

Regarding the version of events - I cited the Chinese version. If you'd like to discredit them, that is fine, but is it wise to only base our knowledge of this event on western (anti-north korean) media, with assumed guilt lying with the opposite party? I agree that DPRK media is most likely equatable to FOX news, but I wouldn't go so far as to equate Xinhua (one of the Chinese government-controlled news agencies) to that low level.

Regarding the South Korean step up military exercises and the reasons you give, are you admitting that this is not conducive towards non-escalation? I am not denying that there isn't a reason to escalate, but would like to underscore that arguments made that the South is currently actively avoiding escalation are not substantiated thus far.

While Xinhua is not anywhere near as biased as what comes from NK, it's hardly an unbiased news source. They report what they're allowed to report.

There is a difference between 'avoiding escalation' and 'sitting around and being a chump while the other guys does whatever he wants'. Had they wanted to do a tit-for-tat retaliation for Cheonan, a 'mysterious explosion' on a random North Korean patrol boat would have delivered them message. Just hanging out on your side of the border and running exercises is *hardly* a provocation - unless you're North Korea. In that case, doing *anything* they don't like is a provocation - but the other option is to completely ignore the situation, which is more likely to generate an escalation on the side of the *North* until they determine what they can get away with before getting a reaction

I agree up to a point.

I would assert that 'just running military exercises' on the border with a nation you are officially still at war with to be provocative, much like how Israel would view Syrian military exercises near the Golan heights (if they dared), or how the Hezbollah rallies are portrayed.

I agree that South Korea may be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to dealing with the North, and we could discuss in agreement ad nauseum about why this may be the case.

The cynic in me suggests that certain South Korean political parties may stand to gain from this incident, as it would add support to their policies. With such a long history of living side by side with one of the most perversely-run nations in the world, you'd think they'd have expected such a response with their little 'military exercise' and used it to their advantage.

1. South Korea did not attack North Korea. It did not hurt any North Koreans. North Korea responded to a non-attack, which did not hurt any North Koreans, with an attack that did hurt and kill South Koreans and is forcing the evacuation of over a thousand civilians from the island.
2. You seem to be implying that South Korea should basically do whatever North Korea asks it to. "You don't like us conducting military exercises here? Our bad, we'll do them somewhere else." Conducting routine military exercises is not escalation. Based on North Korea's behavior, the South is within its rights to be prepared for more serious military action on its northern frontier.
If South Korea had sunk a North Korean corvette in retaliation for the North Koreans' sinking of the Cheonan, that would have been escalation.
3. Repeated North Korean attacks that have killed South Koreans prove that North Korea is a threat to South Korea, and that South Korea is within its rights--indeed, is very wise--to take steps to ensure its readiness to defend itself against a more serious attack.
You never consider people's past behavior when you deal with them? The fact that someone has beaten you up and stolen your lunch money every day for the past week should make no difference in how you interact with them today?

Strategos +1

@Scagga - both side run exercises *all the time* on the border - should the South just cancel them every time the North squawks?

Everything I'm reading implies this was unexpected, as this is the first time the north has shot artillery into South Korean territory since the Armistice was signed.

I have to admit I find the 'blame the South Koreans' comment a little... annoying. You admit they're between a rock and a hard place, but you seem to be saying the South should just suck it up, no matter what the North does.

As for Syria and Israel, Israel runs exercises in the Golan Heights on an irregular basis. I would not be surprised if Syria does the same thing on their side of the border

I have to go conduct some business, but I'll give you an abbreviated answer, Mr Flying Penguin:

Re: Point 1, explain how that helps us assign guilt. Unequal damage is not a sole function of guilt.

Re: Point 2a, I am not implying that the South Koreans should do whatever the North Koreans ask. That is unfounded.

Re: Point 2b The Cheonan sinking - North Korea has been accused and investigated by the accusers, but there is no independent proof of their guilt. It is also irrelevant in this case. I have already made that point clear.

Re: Point 3, I find it to be rhetoric - do you think that doing something that is within someone's rights is necessarily always a good idea?

Re: Past behaviour. If I recall correctly in a court of law a defendant's past convictions are kept secret to avoid causing bias to the jury, so that judgement is passed on the evidence related to the case and not in light of previous convictions or investigations. At least I understand that to be true for UK law.

Anyway, got things to do, I'll continue this interesting discourse later!

Addendum to the past behaviour (I believe there are certain qualifying criteria for their disclosure, pardon my ignorance)

@fiedler: 'They are a vassal state of china. They can do as they please as long as they don't let McDonalds into the country.'

I tend to disagree
a) because I believe the Chinese Government are just as wary of DPRK as anyone else (since we're a long way from 1956) and
b) because there are McDonalds all over China itself (I can call for a take-away Big Mac right now and receive it piping hot within about 10 minutes), although I guess that was a humorous aside.

If this were a 'game' of Diplomacy, what would you do?
No-one can seriously ally with them (especially China, who are now seeking a legitimate role 'on the world stage' and hoping to gain more powerful allies than this volatile, aggressive and extremely dangerous nation).
Personally, I'd favour Backstab/Pre-emptive strike. (However, that's probably why I'm not a very good Diplomacy player.)

Why doesn't every nation involved just meta-game and dump on them once and for all in a coordinated rathunt, taking care to protect civilians as much as possible?

@ Scagga: The sinking of the Cheonan is entirely relevant to today's events. On what basis do you argue that North Korea's recent actions are not relevant?

@ Timur: "Why doesn't every nation involved just meta-game and dump on them once and for all in a coordinated rathunt, taking care to protect civilians as much as possible?"

That question has already been answered in this thread, but to re-state the answer for you:

Because Seoul is within North Korean artillery range, and therefore any serious attack on North Korea would result in thousands of South Korean citizens being killed.

@Timur: Well yes the 'McDonalds' bit meant american influence. Which means american military bases right on the border with china - something they don't appreciate much. Bases from which they can run black ops, extract people etc.

The fact that there are McDonalds all over China doesnt relate to the case of North Korea. China can confidently handle it's own internal security, but it is rightly suspicious of the culturally very different koreans, probly most of which would join the western way if they were given the chance. Therefore they are kept in the dark and fed bullshit.

Why are we a long way from 1956? What has changed in terms of power-relations vis-a-vis korea?

If we were playing diplomacy NK would probly CD pretty quick! :)

ahh.. the west tried to conquer all of korea back in the fifties... china intervened with millions of troops, people died, quite a few in fact. look it up.