5 ms·

What do you mean to imply? Do you refer to a specific incident in 1958? Or, do you blame US military aggression for the North's current nuclear program? Perhaps

What do you mean to imply? Do you refer to a specific incident in 1958? Or, do you blame US military aggression for the North's current nuclear program? Perhaps if North Korea hadn't invaded the South in 1948, there would be no need for a militarized border and heavy US defensive presence. Rather than a vanguard invasion force, I've read that the 28,500 US military personnel in Korea today exist as a sort of political tripwire. There aren't enough of them to hold the line, let alone successfully invade the North, but their deaths in the event of a conflict would commit the US to the fight.

crdoconnor 10y ago
Simply that the North Korean nuclear program was largely a reaction to deployed US nukes on the 38th parallel. I'm bemused that this is considered a controversial fact. Edit : I meant to say nuclear missiles and artillery were deployed in 1958 which is what NK reacted to, they had conventional weaponry deployed before that.
- astebbin 10y ago
  Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. In this light, I'll note that Bush the elder removed US all nuclear arms from the Korea peninsula in 1991 (although Pyongyang's certainly still in range of American missiles and bombers): http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/not-a-good-idea-american-nukes-in-south-korea/ http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/not-a-good-idea-american-nuke... Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario, and that this fear (rather than of American nuclear artillery, missiles, etc) has been the primary motivation behind their nuclear arms development. I don't think a conventional US invasion is likely, hence my comment. I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program, given their alliance (or subordinate relationship?) with China.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >In this light, I'll note that Bush the elder removed US all nuclear arms from the Korea peninsula in 1991 True, but: * given the US's nuclear submarine, bomber and ICBM capability this was likely seen as a moot point. The threat was still there. Indeed, one of the reasons the US cited for removing its nukes was that they were no longer needed. * They actually never fully confirmed this withdrawal until 1998. >Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario I think so too - for now, but it probably didn't seem that way in 1958 when they had nukes pointed at them. >I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program I do. They'd be much more vulnerable to invasion. Given the US's military history in the last half century (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.), I think their fear of that is somewhat justified. Their alliance with China does provide some protection but relations have soured over the last few decades and if I were them I wouldn't see it as a relationship they could depend upon.
    - PerfectDlite 10y ago
      > I think so too - for now, but it probably didn't seem that way in 1958 when they had nukes pointed at them. Nukes were pointed at them because they've invaded South Korea first.
    - astebbin 10y ago
      To make my own position clear - if their alliance with China does crumble, and if the nuclear danger can be mitigated, I would like to see regime change in North Korea. I'm not one for military adventurism; however, I see the current situation there as more similar to the Rwandan Genocide than the setup to the 2003 Iraq invasion. A peaceful, East Germany-style transition would be preferable, but I also think it's possible that an invasion to free the current generation of North Koreans could do more good than letting them die under another Kim's boot. Millions live there today in deprivation and fear, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of North Koreans reportedly living (and dying, via torture and brutal execution) in Nazi-style concentration camps. Needless to say, a successful reunification of the Korean peninsula would benefit future generations of North Koreans as well. If you're curious, here are the books which formed my impression on the subject: "Without You, There Is No Us," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JTC9QBO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JTC9QBO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... "The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EWETZW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EWETZW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... "Dear Leader: My Escape from North Korea," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IBYRQ18/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IBYRQ18/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
anticodon 10y ago
You also forget that South Korea pays significant amount of money for US "protection".
- astebbin 10y ago
  It looks like those numbers are hard to quantify, since South Korea's expenditures include e.g. salaries for Korean workers at US bases and the provision of non-cash resources and services: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-allies-20160930-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-allies-20160930-sn... I suppose if the government in Seoul no longer felt it was worth the cost, they could stop paying and ask the Americans to leave. EDIT: Oh yeah, why did you put "protection" in quotes? That's exactly what it is. The US doesn't pay North Korea to break the South's windows, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.
sanxiyn 10y ago
1958 is the year US deployed tactical nuclear weapon in South Korean bases.

crdoconnor 10y ago

Simply that the North Korean nuclear program was largely a reaction to deployed US nukes on the 38th parallel. I'm bemused that this is considered a controversial fact. Edit : I meant to say nuclear missiles and artillery were deployed in 1958 which is what NK reacted to, they had conventional weaponry deployed before that.

astebbin 10y ago
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. In this light, I'll note that Bush the elder removed US all nuclear arms from the Korea peninsula in 1991 (although Pyongyang's certainly still in range of American missiles and bombers): http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/not-a-good-idea-american-nukes-in-south-korea/ http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/not-a-good-idea-american-nuke... Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario, and that this fear (rather than of American nuclear artillery, missiles, etc) has been the primary motivation behind their nuclear arms development. I don't think a conventional US invasion is likely, hence my comment. I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program, given their alliance (or subordinate relationship?) with China.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >In this light, I'll note that Bush the elder removed US all nuclear arms from the Korea peninsula in 1991 True, but: * given the US's nuclear submarine, bomber and ICBM capability this was likely seen as a moot point. The threat was still there. Indeed, one of the reasons the US cited for removing its nukes was that they were no longer needed. * They actually never fully confirmed this withdrawal until 1998. >Overall, my impression is that North Korea fears a conventional ROK/US invasion much more than a nuclear exchange scenario I think so too - for now, but it probably didn't seem that way in 1958 when they had nukes pointed at them. >I also don't think the situation would be different if NK didn't have a nuclear arms program I do. They'd be much more vulnerable to invasion. Given the US's military history in the last half century (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.), I think their fear of that is somewhat justified. Their alliance with China does provide some protection but relations have soured over the last few decades and if I were them I wouldn't see it as a relationship they could depend upon.
  - PerfectDlite 10y ago
    > I think so too - for now, but it probably didn't seem that way in 1958 when they had nukes pointed at them. Nukes were pointed at them because they've invaded South Korea first.
  - astebbin 10y ago
    To make my own position clear - if their alliance with China does crumble, and if the nuclear danger can be mitigated, I would like to see regime change in North Korea. I'm not one for military adventurism; however, I see the current situation there as more similar to the Rwandan Genocide than the setup to the 2003 Iraq invasion. A peaceful, East Germany-style transition would be preferable, but I also think it's possible that an invasion to free the current generation of North Koreans could do more good than letting them die under another Kim's boot. Millions live there today in deprivation and fear, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of North Koreans reportedly living (and dying, via torture and brutal execution) in Nazi-style concentration camps. Needless to say, a successful reunification of the Korean peninsula would benefit future generations of North Koreans as well. If you're curious, here are the books which formed my impression on the subject: "Without You, There Is No Us," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JTC9QBO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JTC9QBO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... "The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EWETZW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EWETZW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... "Dear Leader: My Escape from North Korea," https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IBYRQ18/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IBYRQ18/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

anticodon 10y ago

You also forget that South Korea pays significant amount of money for US "protection".

astebbin 10y ago
It looks like those numbers are hard to quantify, since South Korea's expenditures include e.g. salaries for Korean workers at US bases and the provision of non-cash resources and services: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-allies-20160930-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-allies-20160930-sn... I suppose if the government in Seoul no longer felt it was worth the cost, they could stop paying and ask the Americans to leave. EDIT: Oh yeah, why did you put "protection" in quotes? That's exactly what it is. The US doesn't pay North Korea to break the South's windows, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.

sanxiyn 10y ago

1958 is the year US deployed tactical nuclear weapon in South Korean bases.