4 ms·

I'm surprised the author didn't mention the outlier for a very long and successful ceasefire (despite numerous border incidents): North Korea/China and South Ko

by cjslep 10y ago

I'm surprised the author didn't mention the outlier for a very long and successful ceasefire (despite numerous border incidents): North Korea/China and South Korea/USA. It would've made the article seem a little more balanced to me.

JulianMorrison 10y ago
Eh, that's more like a proxy war stalemate. It's not quite the same thing.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  What is a ceasefire if not a stalemate? Also it's not a proxy war to Koreans, obviously.
  - avn2109 10y ago
    A stalemate is when the belligerents have fought to a draw. A ceasefire is when they could fight more but choose not to.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      In Korea, both sides definitely could fight more. So it's a ceasefire.
      - hga 10y ago
        But you're not counting the "Chinese volunteers" who completely turned around the result of the initial war. After they withdrew, it's very questionable the North could have fought some more.
        Alupis 10y ago
        > it's very questionable the North could have fought some more China didn't enter the war "just because" - the main reason was the US encroachment on the Chinese border. By comparison, it would be as-if China was warring in Mexico, and the US decided to ensure China didn't continue marching northwards. Both China and the US more-or-less stood-down together, which left both North and South Korea in a tough spot - fighting could absolutely continue, however it would have been more of a drag on both nations without their "big brother" support. So, the ceasefire wasn't because one side of the other couldn't continue the fight - it was because both sides _could_ continue the fight, but both recognized it would be devastating for everyone. If we fast forward to today, it's unquestionable both sides (with or without foreign support) could continue to wage war on the other.
        hga 10y ago
        Well, it's demonstrably not "unquestionable", since I question every paragraph you've written above after the first. And most especially the last, for the North can't even feed its own army, and one of the many things standing in the way of reunification is the major difference in intelligence, height, and so on of the respective populations, the North being stunted from malnutrition. The South's hand has been stayed because they've not been willing to take the costs, especially to Seoul, infamously within heavy artillery range of the North, and of course our moderating influence. And now, of course, we've let the North get nukes....
        Alupis 10y ago
        "Could continue the war" isn't the same as "Want to continue the war". The ceasefire is/was a great way for both sides to "save face" and not admit defeat.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        Pretty impressive that a nation of starving imbeciles can have a successful nuclear weapons program.
        hga 10y ago
Bartweiss 10y ago
I can see a decent argument that the Korean ceasefire is qualitatively different; it arose less from an attempt to stop fighting, and more from a conflict where no one wanted to keep fighting but peace terms couldn't be settled. It wasn't envisioned like ceasefires in Syria, Palestine, or Ireland, as a way to stop killings while peace talks happen. Having said that, it certainly deserves mention as an exceptional result. Many of the border incidents have been larger than the events that broke other ceasefires, but the fundamental peace has held.
hga 10y ago
despite numerous border incidents And, oh, more than a few attempts to kill the head of the government of South Korea? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangoon_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangoon_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_House_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_House_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuk_Young-soo#Assassination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuk_Young-soo#Assassination), naval combat ... this is a most hot "cease-fire", just look through the grab bag of topics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:North_Korea%E2%80%93South_Korea_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:North_Korea%E2%80%93S... I count it as an abandoned armistice, which is what it started out as (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), abandoned through the deeds and words of the North. Which, without another huge helping of "Chinese volunteers" simply lacks the military strength to do a whole lot more without retaliation they, or rather their nomenklatura, aren't willing to bear.

by cjslep 10y ago

JulianMorrison 10y ago

Eh, that's more like a proxy war stalemate. It's not quite the same thing.

ethanbond 10y ago
What is a ceasefire if not a stalemate? Also it's not a proxy war to Koreans, obviously.
- avn2109 10y ago
  A stalemate is when the belligerents have fought to a draw. A ceasefire is when they could fight more but choose not to.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    In Korea, both sides definitely could fight more. So it's a ceasefire.
    - hga 10y ago
      But you're not counting the "Chinese volunteers" who completely turned around the result of the initial war. After they withdrew, it's very questionable the North could have fought some more.
      - Alupis 10y ago
        > it's very questionable the North could have fought some more China didn't enter the war "just because" - the main reason was the US encroachment on the Chinese border. By comparison, it would be as-if China was warring in Mexico, and the US decided to ensure China didn't continue marching northwards. Both China and the US more-or-less stood-down together, which left both North and South Korea in a tough spot - fighting could absolutely continue, however it would have been more of a drag on both nations without their "big brother" support. So, the ceasefire wasn't because one side of the other couldn't continue the fight - it was because both sides _could_ continue the fight, but both recognized it would be devastating for everyone. If we fast forward to today, it's unquestionable both sides (with or without foreign support) could continue to wage war on the other.
        hga 10y ago
        Well, it's demonstrably not "unquestionable", since I question every paragraph you've written above after the first. And most especially the last, for the North can't even feed its own army, and one of the many things standing in the way of reunification is the major difference in intelligence, height, and so on of the respective populations, the North being stunted from malnutrition. The South's hand has been stayed because they've not been willing to take the costs, especially to Seoul, infamously within heavy artillery range of the North, and of course our moderating influence. And now, of course, we've let the North get nukes....
        Alupis 10y ago
        "Could continue the war" isn't the same as "Want to continue the war". The ceasefire is/was a great way for both sides to "save face" and not admit defeat.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        Pretty impressive that a nation of starving imbeciles can have a successful nuclear weapons program.
        hga 10y ago

Bartweiss 10y ago

I can see a decent argument that the Korean ceasefire is qualitatively different; it arose less from an attempt to stop fighting, and more from a conflict where no one wanted to keep fighting but peace terms couldn't be settled. It wasn't envisioned like ceasefires in Syria, Palestine, or Ireland, as a way to stop killings while peace talks happen. Having said that, it certainly deserves mention as an exceptional result. Many of the border incidents have been larger than the events that broke other ceasefires, but the fundamental peace has held.

hga 10y ago

despite numerous border incidents And, oh, more than a few attempts to kill the head of the government of South Korea? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangoon_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangoon_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_House_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_House_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuk_Young-soo#Assassination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuk_Young-soo#Assassination), naval combat ... this is a most hot "cease-fire", just look through the grab bag of topics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:North_Korea%E2%80%93South_Korea_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:North_Korea%E2%80%93S... I count it as an abandoned armistice, which is what it started out as (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), abandoned through the deeds and words of the North. Which, without another huge helping of "Chinese volunteers" simply lacks the military strength to do a whole lot more without retaliation they, or rather their nomenklatura, aren't willing to bear.