Re: Korea: More rhetoric or is it going to "go time?"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you always have to remember about the Korean peninsula is that geopolitical considerations factor into every discussion and decision. Just like the Korean War wasn't about the unification of the Korean peninsula per se, the present day issues aren't about the two countries either. I've spent a lot of time in and around Korea, and one thing always stands out: there are more hands in the pot than you think.
I agree with the above posters that China is the big mover here. They have the most to lose since refugees only have to cross the Yalu or Tumen Rivers to make it to China, instead of a demilitarized zone full of landmines between North and South Korea. Another big consideration is that North Korea borders Manchuria, one of China's most resource-rich areas. A flood of refugees into that area will destabilize the region, hampering the internal imperialism China uses to expand and grow its economy by consumption of resources. Manchuria gets very little of the development its resources fund, thus a sudden influx of people will create a more desperate crisis in terms of sanitation, food, work, and political unrest.
China has worked to maintain the status quo in North Korea for decades. That strategy may be failing them now, as alluded to in recent cables saying China sees North Korea as a spoiled child. Nonetheless, the only way Chinese policy will change is if there is a demonstrable benefit over maintaining the NK status quo.
I don't believe NK will use a nuke unless an invasion is literally under way. Remember, nukes aren't really offensive weapons. They exist for deterrent purposes (Cold War, India v Pakistan, Israel's nuke program, et alia). NK doesn't have the precision delivery vehicles to make effective use of the nuclear weapons they have. A nuke attack by the North would likely be followed by a nuclear retaliation in kind by the West, and it would be overwhelming and devastating due to Western powers' necessity of establishing precedent for nuclear response.
There's significant sword rattling going on, partly because the South has allowed the North too much leeway (especially since the sinking of the Cheonan), and partly because NK is going through a transition of power to Kim Jongun. The situation is absolutely tenuous, but neither side wants to fight this war, and the larger sponsors (China and US) are certainly hoping for detente. Hopefully cool heads will prevail.</div></div>
This is the kind of analysis I was hoping to read. I did not know Manchuria was a particularly threatened area, nor would I have suspected that the added load of NK refugees, should the war take place, threaten stability there even worse.
My prayers this Christmas have been for peace in that region but my wife and others I've spoken to about this are simply tired of hearing about the destabilizing notions of the North Koreans and wish it over by any means, up to and including violence.
I don't think any of them understand that if anything happens there - virtually anything at all - it means the total and utter destruction of Seoul and everyone who lives there. I just checked - there's 10+ million South Koreans there!
