ext_114329 ([identity profile] malasadas.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2010-11-23 07:06 am
Entry tags:

Simple Question of International Import

What are the odds that this gets a LOT worse by the traditional spring time offensive season when a young general's fancy turns to invasion?

Brief timeline:

North Korea is accused of torpedoing a South Korean warship.

South Korea fires at North Korean fishing boats crossing the maritime border North Korea refuses to recognize.

North Korea is revealed to have highly modern facilities for nuclear material enrichment.

Not to mention, North Korea is facing the challenge of passing along the regime to a third generation of the Kim family.

North Korea is known for rattling its sabre and demanding to have attention paid to it when it is being ignored, but this is looking like a very different than recent years -- South Korea really has to retaliate...and half of South Korea's population lives in the Seoul metropolitan area within artillery range of the DMZ.

So a question -- is North Korea suicidal or are they betting that this behavior can get them some more winter grain shipments?

[identity profile] rasilio.livejournal.com 2010-11-23 06:21 pm (UTC)(link)
The fact that we have not placed automated gun towers on the US Mexican border shows just how false this statement is.

The US is far from a saint but in the last 40 years it has grown very squeamish about civilian casualties on either side and clearly does not have the stomach to actively commit genocide even on a small scale any longer.

If there ever is a WW3 you can rest assured that there will be no more Tokyo's or Dresden's.

[identity profile] ninboydean.livejournal.com 2010-11-23 06:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Vietnam and Pakistan are around the upper and lower limits of your time frame, and they both represent an explicit disregard for civilian casualties, coupled with extensive, civilian-targeted bombind campaigns.

I'm not sure what makes you think the Mexican border is the one measurable example here, though. If that were the case, we could just as readily measure China's lack of aggression towards N Korea and call it a day.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2010-11-23 10:04 pm (UTC)(link)
He's naive I'll admit that, but then in any case if a war actually starts Seoul will be destroyed and the current economic recovery, limited as it is, gets a major setback. That's one elephant in the room nobody's mentioning here if North Korea decides to find its fitting place to die.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2010-11-23 10:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Has it? Civilian casualties are inevitable these days in a war. Sherman's maxim rings truer than ever, and it's one reason that wars need a damned good reason to start in the first place. Starting one for shits and giggles the way Bush did with Iraq is by the converse *un*forgivable for just that reason. Modern firepower is too deadly to be used in senseless wars. By the same token, it's something that applies to *all* combatants be they state or non-state. Ordinarily I loathe Curtis LeMay but he was right when he said all war is immoral.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/ 2010-11-24 07:25 am (UTC)(link)
The fact that we have not placed automated gun towers on the US Mexican border shows just how false this statement is.

China does not place automated gun towers on its borders, either.

The US is far from a saint but in the last 40 years it has grown very squeamish about civilian casualties on either side and clearly does not have the stomach to actively commit genocide even on a small scale any longer.

But if the comparison is China, the US has still killed more civilians (in war).