The G20 summit, and the results thereof

[V7]

In terms of gear they're out classed - but the DPRK has about 70% of the KPA (700k soldiers, 8k artillery, 2k tanks) stationed within 90 miles of the DMZ. South Korea has about 560k troops total, 2300-ish tanks, and 5100-ish artillery; granted, South Korea has better stuff and U.S. assistance, but the DPRK would be able to operate for a pretty long period of time before the U.S. would be able to send any significant reinforcements to the region - so we'd be left with our 27k guys in North Korea for the foreseeable future. I don't think the DPRK would be able to take the whole peninsula either but they'd definitely be able to thoroughly destroy a good deal of the population centers of South Korea before they were rolled back (assuming nukes did not enter into the scenario).

Thi sis what I was getting at above - on those numbers and given the superioity of the US/SK technology I'd put money on a failry swift win by the South (and we've had plenty of recent examples of massed militry force being comprehensivly defeated by mobile modern military) - the real deterant is all that artillery pointed at Seoul.

 

[V7]

Maybe I misread all of these posts, but it seems to me there are two options being discusses, one diplomatic route as usual and second invasion. No one specifically said the US but what other country are they talking about then?

can't speak for PJ or M. but IMO an invasion woudl be an absolute last case option - the damage to South Korea would be worst then a couple of nukes.

Like I said I just found it interesting no one was discussing, in the invasion part, uniting different countries in the invasion or the EU coming in or anyone else but the US. Not a big deal by the way, just an observation.

Because no one else is insane enough to talk about it as if its a relaistic option - Japan could certainly do it if they really committed, the South could possibly manage on their own (depending on the view you take of th ereletive military strength) - but the regional fallout would be a disaster.

 

[Rithrandil]

Thi sis what I was getting at above - on those numbers and given the superioity of the US/SK technology I'd put money on a failry swift win by the South (and we've had plenty of recent examples of massed militry force being comprehensivly defeated by mobile modern military) - the real deterant is all that artillery pointed at Seoul.

We're both assuming nukes aren't being used, I take it (because that would obviously make things a hell of a lot more complicated)

I think we have a much, much superior military, I'm just not sure if the South Koreans and 27k Americans would be enough to force the DPRK back; I think if we're saying the North Koreans wreck Seoul, move south a bit, and then we end up in a stalemate somewhere a little south of the DMZ I could agree with that - but there are a lot of X factors. Is China supporting North Korea - and if so, explicitly or implicitly? Is China cutting off supplies to North Korea? What is Japan doing?

I don't think an ROK/USA victory would be a walk in the park, especially when we wouldn't be able to send in very many reinforcements for...well, a very long time.

I wish I still had access to Jane's Military Balance. It was really cool and useful in this sort of discussion.

 

[skavenhorde]

Because no one else is insane enough to talk about it as if its a relaistic option - Japan could certainly do it if they really committed, the South could possibly manage on their own (depending on the view you take of th ereletive military strength) - but the regional fallout would be a disaster.

I am insane enough to talk about it. I don't know maybe it's something like history has a way of surprising people who say things like "no one else is insane enough to talk about it"

But here is the thing....I also listened to Rithrandil and he made sense as to why it wouldn't be an option. So you will notice that I didn't mention that again or maybe you didn't notice. I wasn't even saying anything to do with rearming of Japan or S. Korea. I was making an observation that even here people think of the US as a first line of defense. It was interesting with all these different political backgrounds.

Ok have fun, I made my P&R contribution and seem to confuse people. Go back to saving this world now I think I'll head back to Gothic 3 to save that world.

 

[V7]

We're both assuming nukes aren't being used, I take it (because that would obviously make things a hell of a lot more complicated)

I think we're both agreed that a military option would be simple be out because of all the external factors muddying the water (nukes, china, risk to Seoul etc) - we may disagree a little on what would happen in a purely conventional war, but thats really an academic disagreement in that context.

 

[magerette]

Maybe I misread all of these posts, but it seems to me there are two options being discusses, one diplomatic route as usual and second invasion. No one specifically said the US but what other country are they talking about then?

Hell even Margette talks a little bit of what the response would be like

I wasn't positing an invasion, skav, mostly just meant that in any kind of conflict between North and South Korea, we'd be drawn in because of our strong ties to SK, and our forces already stationed there. When you have (from wikipedia) "the U.S. Eighth Army, Seventh Air Force and U.S. Naval Forces Korea " stationed there, it isn't a crazy assumption to think we'd offer military support.

I don't want to see any one country invading anyone--it's a recipe for disaster. If military force needs to be used in the modern world, it needs to be used judiciously and multilaterally and as a last resort--not that we have a real framework for that atm.

 

[dteowner]

Indeed, we should trust in the Glorious UN. They've done oh so well keeping DPRK in line over the last decade. This latest rocket test (oh sorry, "space satelite launch", Mr. Kim) happened during stout UN economic sanctions and nearly global political isolation, let us not forget. So what's next on DPRK's plate, cuz they pulled this one off with nary a slap on the wrist. Maybe a little incursion into an unsuspecting southern neighbor, same as the last guy the UN had supposedly "contained" with stout economic sanctions and global political isolation?

 

[dteowner]

I kept meaning to get back to this and kept forgetting to actually do it.

Edit: This is why we fail to see eye to eye on the question. Our success criteria are different. Your success criteria involve rendering the rogue state either incapable or unwilling to inflict damage on its neighbors, third countries, or its own population; my success criteria are much more modest -- simply deterring or preventing it from inflicting damage on its neighbors or third countries, whatever it does to its own population, whatever capability it retains, and whatever lesser (and therefore manageable) mischief it may be up to.

I largely agree with this, but I think the key difference for me is that these countries (moreso Iraq than DPRK, but still) have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with capability. Thus, the only way to actually achieve "deterring or preventing it from inflicting damage..." (which is really just different wording for the same goal, to me) is to remove that capability completely. With no ability, there is no temptation.

Edit 2: Therefore, by your criteria, America's policy vis a vis the USSR was a disastrous failure, because it never managed to make a dent in the USSR's military capability nor its capability to oppress its own population, nor even the population of third countries within its sphere of influence -- until it collapsed of its own accord, due to the fundamental unsustainability of its system. OTOH I consider that very same policy a roaring success, since it prevented the USSR from extending its influence further, or starting a third world war.

I don't know that I'd call it a disastrous failure since their collapse was certainly dramatically hastened by the economic strain of keeping up in the arms race. On the other hand, we wouldn't be discussing DPRK had containment actually worked. One could draw some parallels between DPRK and Sudentenland, me thinks, which really puts a deep dent in your "roaring success" (as well as putting a black eye on US policy).

 

[V7]

Indeed, we should trust in the Glorious UN. They've done oh so well keeping DPRK in line over the last decade.

So you've got a solution that doesn't involve Seoul getting flattened, a nucelar exchange and WWIII?

 

[dteowner]

We haven't tried any other solution than the UN's empty talking, and it has failed completely over the past 10 years, which is enough time to make a fair and honest judgment.

It's time to put real pressure on China. They're the only non-military lever we've got left at this point since Mr. Kim knows all the UN bluster is toothless and empty. Obviously, this will have to be done outside the hallowed halls of the UN since China has veto power on the security council. Turn the economic screws on Bejing and I bet Mr. Kim gets nice in a real hurry.

If you don't have the nuts for that, then I guess you're down to military solutions. I'd recommend a naval blockade as an opener. Less overtly aggressive, and easier to "call back" if Mr. Kim decides he's had a change of heart. I don't see Mr. Kim wanting to fire the first missle any more than we do, so that allows a non-combat approach like a blockade to have possibilities. Plus, Kim can save face by quietly backing down and then telling his people how he stood strong and chased the evil Americans away after the blockade is lifted. (I'm assuming "Americans" since, as skaven pointed out a bit ago, y'all are always more than willing to volunteer us to do the dying for your benefit)

 

[Rithrandil]

I also wonder how much our Korean operations (since the Armistice) have cost us, and what the current cost is per year. I think if we're expected to basically sit there and contain them the rest of the world should at least help foot some of the bill.

 

[Pladio]

Indeed, we should trust in the Glorious UN. They've done oh so well keeping DPRK in line over the last decade. This latest rocket test (oh sorry, "space satelite launch", Mr. Kim) happened during stout UN economic sanctions and nearly global political isolation, let us not forget. So what's next on DPRK's plate, cuz they pulled this one off with nary a slap on the wrist. Maybe a little incursion into an unsuspecting southern neighbor, same as the last guy the UN had supposedly "contained" with stout economic sanctions and global political isolation?

Not global isolation, just western nations... China is an ally of NK and so has completely disrupted any UN sanctions imposed. IF all countries agree to the sanctions then they would be effective, but that's almost never what happens.

 

[V7]

We haven't tried any other solution than the UN's empty talking, and it has failed completely over the past 10 years, which is enough time to make a fair and honest judgment.

Actually the UN hasn't been involved on this one - its been the US Japan SK and China.

but sure but the economic screws on China, I bet N Korea will be the last thing on anyone's mind.

 

[dteowner]

DPRK has been under various UN sanctions for years. They've even been on the receiving end of some strongly worded resolutions. The UN has been involved. It just seems like they haven't since they haven't accomplished squat. It's an understandable mistake, V7.

 

[dteowner]

IF all countries agree to the sanctions then they would be effective, but that's almost never what happens.

I'd actually agree with that, Pladio, which is a pivotal plank in my argument that the UN is largely useless (outside of their aid functions, but those could be and/or are already supplied more efficiently by various charities such as the Red Cross).

 

[V7]

DPRK has been under various UN sanctions for years. They've even been on the receiving end of some strongly worded resolutions. The UN has been involved. It just seems like they haven't since they haven't accomplished squat. It's an understandable mistake, V7.

Actually if you'd been following the situation you'd know UN scanctions were only voted on in 2006 and implemented through 2007, the lead actors for the last two decades have been the US and asian countries.

 

[dteowner]

If you'd been following along, you'd know that the UN has been involved there since that little flare-up known as the Korean War. 1950. Don't be an ass.

 

[Benedict]

The only solutions that will work is some sort of mix of privatization, cutting benefits, and raising the retirement age - but they don't call it the third rail of American politics for nothing.

From an actuarial perspective, it does pretty much have to be that. Unless the health care systems stop spending quite so much on keeping people alive for ages in states of near death and / or euthanasia becomes more culturally acceptable.

The increases in investment needed from people of working age to fund anything different would be vast and, IMO, very unfair to impose on younger generations to fund older generations. Don't get me wrong, I think younger generations should start making higher contributions, but that should to some degree be teamed with shifting retirement ages to bring older generations entitlements more in line with the contributions they've actually made.

Although in conjunction with shifting retirement ages I think there needs to be a far more concerted push towards retraining for older people & encouraging employers to take on older staff so that later retirements are more feasible, particularly for people formerly in physically demanding jobs who simply couldn't continue in their current career.

 

[Benedict]

I guess I really just don't understand why the system can't become solvent if properly envisioned and properly administered.

The numbers really don't add up without higher retirement ages or a more pragmatic and restrained application of the medical advances that, unfortunately, do little more than create years of hugely expensive palliative care for old people with incredibly poor quality of life.

Not without (UK estimates IIRC from a fairly recent article in that ever riveting periodical The Actuary) a near tripling of the level of GDP spent on funding retirement benefits, which is politically pretty tough to push. People are simply living too long after retirement ages that have not kept pace with demographic and medical changes, and IMO with too low a quality of life for many people for a long time.

Certainly I pray that euthanasia would be a realistic option when my time comes, I'd like to crack on with life for as long as possible while it's still fun but there'll come a point where I hope I can choose my end with dignity.

 

[Benedict]

Very scary, indeed, just through episode three. I skipped to thirteen, then fourteen, and I don't know which was scarier, the image of a land with empty restaurants, hotels and no food spending a king's ransom on useless, incredibly elaborate mass spectacle games, the idea of a country with no cultural references beyond the 1950's, or (less seriously) the karaoke singing.

And those costumes!

Don't they ship all pregnant women & cripples out of the capital too?

At least the North Korean issue is being taken seriously now