North Korea: 2012-2016

[JMA]

Indeed. The weaker North does play his games of aggression thinking and hoping that he can rely on the understandable unwillingness of the stronger South to go to war.

Over the last thirty years the power disadvantages of the North have only grown, possibly with one exception, nuclear power. Their desperate attempts to get functional nuclear missiles shows just how weak they are in pretty much all the other areas.

The North has less to lose. The South has everything to lose. The US stands to lose thousands of troops and no matter what China won't allow the US to use nukes.

This is probably another cry for attention from the Hermit Kingdom.

[Ron Humphrey]

The North has less to lose. The South has everything to lose.

lets just say they (NK) started it and it gets finished the Chinese would do exactly , ?what?


Especially considering as you so notably pointed out-

The US stands to lose thousands of troops

as to

This is probably another cry for attention from the Hermit Kingdom

Although its not new does it necessarily change the underlying approaches necessary to deal with it?

These are honest questions, just trying to understand your overarching, things suck so just accept it premise
(or am I misrepresenting your position?)

[JMA]

lets just say they (NK) started it and it gets finished the Chinese would do exactly , ?what?


Especially considering as you so notably pointed out-



as to


Although its not new does it necessarily change the underlying approaches necessary to deal with it?

These are honest questions, just trying to understand your overarching, things suck so just accept it premise
(or am I misrepresenting your position?)

I'm sure the Chinese have given NK clear parameters within to work when it comes to such "incidents".

Suddenly this incident (with a handful of dead) becomes the biggest incident since the ceasefire. So what was the sinking of a naval ship with all hands?

So where is the red line? Is there a red line? Or is it a matter of (as I suspect) that whenever an incident happens the call will be for "restraint" and not to do anything that could lead to an escalation.

This situation is only manageable if the US/SK do nothing.

[Ron Humphrey]

is not so much about red lines and escalation so much as about retribution or lack there of.

Have any ideas on exactly where the Chinese whom you give such great importance in the what if's see the "too far" bar in relation to their reckless child to the souths hissy fits?

Seems like important information when determining how best to avoid "accidental" escalations which seems like everyone agrees wouldn't be good for all involved.

[JMA]

is not so much about red lines and escalation so much as about retribution or lack there of.

Have any ideas on exactly where the Chinese whom you give such great importance in the what if's see the "too far" bar in relation to their reckless child to the souths hissy fits?

Seems like important information when determining how best to avoid "accidental" escalations which seems like everyone agrees wouldn't be good for all involved.

First off the risk from NK is much higher because of their nuclear capability. So there is the first mistake from the weakness of the past.

Given the survival of the NK regime under the current sanctions China remains their source of all sanctions busting imports and probably finance as well. The power is total, "do as we say or we close the border."

China holds the key.

... oh yes, and tell the kids in SK to stop doing silly things unless they are will to step up to the plate and not just threaten to take action next time.

[Dayuhan]

First off the risk from NK is much higher because of their nuclear capability. So there is the first mistake from the weakness of the past.

How, short of war, could the north have been prevented from acquiring a nuclear capability?

[JMA]

How, short of war, could the north have been prevented from acquiring a nuclear capability?

Try to give it a little thought and see what you come up with.

[Rex Brynen]

Have any ideas on exactly where the Chinese whom you give such great importance in the what if's see the "too far" bar in relation to their reckless child to the souths hissy fits?

I would also add that we should be careful not to assume that the Chinese always see these incidents in exactly the same way we do.

It isn't clear to me, for example, that Beijing is convinced that the ROKS Cheonan was necessarily sunk by a North Korean torpedo. Beijing may also agree with Pyongyang that ROK live-fire naval exercises just outside a disputed maritime boundary were provocative, and may even lend some credence to North Korean claims that the incident started when South Korean shells landed in Northern territory.

[Ron Humphrey]

I would also add that we should be careful not to assume that the Chinese always see these incidents in exactly the same way we do.

It isn't clear to me, for example, that Beijing is convinced that the ROKS Cheonan was necessarily sunk by a North Korean torpedo. Beijing may also agree with Pyongyang that ROK live-fire naval exercises just outside a disputed maritime boundary were provocative, and may even lend some credence to North Korean claims that the incident started when South Korean shells landed in Northern territory.

Exactly how does firing on civilian targets actually in South Korean territory fit within Chinese parameters of acceptability.

May just be me, but if they believed as you say wouldn't it seem like this particular action puts them in a rather tough position to say that the North was being unduly accused on the Cheonan.

And lets not forget that its the North who decided to walk someone through to get a look at their new toys just a little bit ago. Somehow the narrative here doesn't seem to help much with the Chinese pushing back against accusations of undue provocations by Kim and company.

[Ken White]

Exactly how does firing on civilian targets actually in South Korean territory fit within Chinese parameters of acceptability.

The demarcation line known informally as the '38th Parallel" or the De Militarized Zone doe not extend into the coastal waters on wither side of the Peninsula, both Notrt and South Korea -- for different reasons -- did not want that to occur at the time of the Truce.

The South did not want it because they effectively occupied many of the islands off both North Korean coasts; the North wanted them to fight over in the future...

The South has moved off many of those islands but still occupy those where the sinking of the Corvette and this artillery duel took place. The North contends they are NK territory, the South disagrees and the South does deliberately provoke things in that area -- and have done so since 1954.

The Chinese -- and the Koreans (both) do indeed look at this far differently than do we. The Chinese also look at differently than does North Korea.

[Rex Brynen]

Exactly how does firing on civilian targets actually in South Korean territory fit within Chinese parameters of acceptability.

I doubt the Chinese thought it was helpful. Equally, however, North Korea does not accept the current post-war border demarcation (the Northern Limit Line), a complicated issue on which I'm not sure that China has a definitive position. The Chinese may well feel that South Korean live fire exercises in a disputed area (and the alleged shelling of North Korean waters, according to Pyongyang) were provocative, even if the subsequent North Korean response was disproportionate.

My point is that we should not assume that China's perception of the conflict is always the same as ours.

* * *

Since I started writing this, five students have knocked on my door, and Ken has written pretty much the same thing.

[Ken White]

Suddenly this incident (with a handful of dead) becomes the biggest incident since the ceasefire. So what was the sinking of a naval ship with all hands?

Not even. Several have been far more significant. This one gets extra traction because a lot of people have digital cameras or phone that will do video today and the news media is on 24/7 and hungry for any 'bad' news' and goes looking for said pics and videos. We just communicate better (well, with more facility... )and more rapidly than we used to.

The Tunnels of the 80s were far more significant, the Song-O sub in 1986 was far more significant, the Axe murder in 1976 was more significant. Here's a partlal list of the larger incidents [(LINK) all of which exceeded this one in scope (thus far). Can't believe The Scotsman neglected the tunnels. You are of course correct that the sinking of the Cheonan last May was a greater provocation -- and thus more important...

There were others that occurred in the 50s and earlier in the 60s. Here's the Wiki with an even longer less including lesser incidents (LINK). This is just business as usual over the last 56 years

This one is most likely all about nothing more than Kim Jong Un nominally giving the order to establish his credibility as the Supreme Leader designee.

[Global Scout]

Ken,

I agree with you, especially since the facts support your argument. There have been many larger incidents over the years to include political assassination attempts, major north Korean SOF infiltrations resulting in more casualties, and state sponsored terrorism by nK, but this was a direct attack on civilians (different) in a democratic ROK (hasn't always been the case), where the government's legitimacy can now be called into play. It is also part III of a "recent" series of events starting with the sinking of the ROK Naval vessel, then the unveiling of their "new" nuclear facility, and now a very overt attack (no denying it like they denied sinking the ship). In the end this may simply pass over, or this could be indictative of significant problems related to the transition of power in the North. We're in a situation where it will be easy for any one side to miscalculate and escalate this into something no one really wants. Every actor thinks he rational, but not all of them are. We're dealing with a nation of wackos to the north who may very well push the ROK to react, and then be forced to react themselves in order to remain their legitimacy. Interesting and dangerous times. I hope next year this is just another minor event in the history of North South relations, but for one I'm going to wait until next year to exhale on this one.

[JMA]

Not even. Several have been far more significant. This one gets extra traction because a lot of people have digital cameras or phone that will do video today and the news media is on 24/7 and hungry for any 'bad' news' and goes looking for said pics and videos. We just communicate better (well, with more facility... )and more rapidly than we used to.

The Tunnels of the 80s were far more significant, the Song-O sub in 1986 was far more significant, the Axe murder in 1976 was more significant. Here's a partlal list of the larger incidents [(LINK) all of which exceeded this one in scope (thus far). Can't believe The Scotsman neglected the tunnels. You are of course correct that the sinking of the Cheonan last May was a greater provocation -- and thus more important...

There were others that occurred in the 50s and earlier in the 60s. Here's the Wiki with an even longer less including lesser incidents (LINK). This is just business as usual over the last 56 years

This one is most likely all about nothing more than Kim Jong Un nominally giving the order to establish his credibility as the Supreme Leader designee.

I need some help here. 200 artillery shells kill 5 (2 soldiers and 3 civvies) and wound 18 when fired into a civilian residential area.

Exaggerated number of shells fired, crap ammo, wild shooting, no one at home or what?

[Maeda Toshiie]

I need some help here. 200 artillery shells kill 5 (2 soldiers and 3 civvies) and wound 18 when fired into a civilian residential area.

Exaggerated number of shells fired, crap ammo, wild shooting, no one at home or what?

Supposedly there were two waves. The first had shells landing all over the place, apparently including water. The second more or less landed on the base itself. The island also has bunkers which the military and civilians took cover in. That probably explains the widespread damage (also partly thanks to the fires started by the shelling) and low casualties.

[JMA]

Supposedly there were two waves. The first had shells landing all over the place, apparently including water. The second more or less landed on the base itself. The island also has bunkers which the military and civilians took cover in. That probably explains the widespread damage (also partly thanks to the fires started by the shelling) and low casualties.

You know this or are you speculating?