4 ms·

>>>Considering the nuclear arsenals in place and the fact that no-one has anything to gain, any discussion about a conflict with North Korea is academic at best

>>>Considering the nuclear arsenals in place and the fact that no-one has anything to gain, any discussion about a conflict with North Korea is academic at best Hardly. NK nukes don't really change SK's MAD vulnerability calculus; it's more of a factor for the US. I worked with a guy who was present in 2010 during that year's Key Resolve....when the "exercise" suddenly became very real due to the sinking of the Cheonan.[1] He was dialed into the video teleconferences that were held by the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said the ROK military leadership was absolutely furious and was legitimately ready to basically re-start the war, and that it was the USFK Commander (the US military 4-star who would command the fight) who had to talk the ROK generals down from the ledge. It came up in conversation I think during 2016's Ulchi Freedom Guardian because the NKs were launching ballistic missiles during the exercise and we all experienced a "pucker factor" for a moment because we weren't sure if they were escalating the conflict or not. Then the missile trajectories indicated they'd land in the ocean and we could breathe again. Fun times. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

mytailorisrich 6y ago
Exactly my point: nothing of significance happened after that skirmish, and no-one was seriously going to restart the war...
- CapricornNoble 6y ago
  No. The Korean military leadership was absolutely ready and willing to restart the war. I have no idea how you could read what I wrote and conclude "see nobody was serious". Seems like the worst case of normalcy bias I've ever witnessed on HN.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    It's their job to be ready and it's understandable that they were emotional. I did not say that they were not serious. I said, and maintain, that non-one was going to seriously suggest restarting the war or act on such suggestion. No if you tell me that the SK's military command was seriously advising to restart the war then I would tell you that either this is BS or that some generals should have been sacked (and perhaps they were). This is not normalcy bias. This is keeping lucid and realising, as said and repeated, that war in Korea is not a realistic prospect, instead of going all Dr Strangelove after watching to many movies. Again, the Korean War was painful for all involved at the time. Today war is simply not possible anymore by any assessment of the situation. The worst thing that could realistically happen in Korea is a collapse of North Korean regime. This could trigger a limited civil war but everyone would have an interest in limiting the fallout, and this is why people tend to be very cautious about any suggestion of effecting "regime change" in the North.
    - CapricornNoble 6y ago
      >>>No if you tell me that the SK's military command was seriously advising to restart the war then I would tell you that either this is BS or that some generals should have been sacked (and perhaps they were). With the caveat that I wasn't the one there, so this is second-hand: Yes, that's how it was communicated to me. The Korean 4-stars were advising restarting the war, and the sole American 4-star to have any say in the matter was the only voice of sanity. I dunno how much of that conversation made it to the South Korean President, so I don't know if he fired anyone afterwards. I'm not sure what the formal process is for the ROK-JCS, USFK, CFC, etc... to make a recommendation to the Korean President, as well as the US President, as well as the United Nations Command. All I know is that if left to their own devices in 2010, the ROK JCS would have invaded the North, knowing full-well what the consequences would be. Things coming down to only one, single, yet influential person saying "that's a bad idea" should highlight that maybe we don't have sufficiently robust institutional controls in place to avoid a bloody conflict indefinitely. >>>The worst thing that could realistically happen in Korea is a collapse of North Korean regime. I'll absolutely agree with this though. There is a very poor understanding of the morale and motivations of most of the NK flag officers. We don't know which ones will outright surrender. We don't know which ones will say "Fuck it, attack the Imperialists!" We do have a reasonable understanding of the Kim regime's priorities: regime survival. So the status quo is preferable to the almost-guaranteed chaos that will ensue should the NK commanders suddenly find themselves in a power vacuum, especially if caused by a hostile foreign actor.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Exactly my point: nothing of significance happened after that skirmish, and no-one was seriously going to restart the war...

CapricornNoble 6y ago
No. The Korean military leadership was absolutely ready and willing to restart the war. I have no idea how you could read what I wrote and conclude "see nobody was serious". Seems like the worst case of normalcy bias I've ever witnessed on HN.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  It's their job to be ready and it's understandable that they were emotional. I did not say that they were not serious. I said, and maintain, that non-one was going to seriously suggest restarting the war or act on such suggestion. No if you tell me that the SK's military command was seriously advising to restart the war then I would tell you that either this is BS or that some generals should have been sacked (and perhaps they were). This is not normalcy bias. This is keeping lucid and realising, as said and repeated, that war in Korea is not a realistic prospect, instead of going all Dr Strangelove after watching to many movies. Again, the Korean War was painful for all involved at the time. Today war is simply not possible anymore by any assessment of the situation. The worst thing that could realistically happen in Korea is a collapse of North Korean regime. This could trigger a limited civil war but everyone would have an interest in limiting the fallout, and this is why people tend to be very cautious about any suggestion of effecting "regime change" in the North.
  - CapricornNoble 6y ago
    >>>No if you tell me that the SK's military command was seriously advising to restart the war then I would tell you that either this is BS or that some generals should have been sacked (and perhaps they were). With the caveat that I wasn't the one there, so this is second-hand: Yes, that's how it was communicated to me. The Korean 4-stars were advising restarting the war, and the sole American 4-star to have any say in the matter was the only voice of sanity. I dunno how much of that conversation made it to the South Korean President, so I don't know if he fired anyone afterwards. I'm not sure what the formal process is for the ROK-JCS, USFK, CFC, etc... to make a recommendation to the Korean President, as well as the US President, as well as the United Nations Command. All I know is that if left to their own devices in 2010, the ROK JCS would have invaded the North, knowing full-well what the consequences would be. Things coming down to only one, single, yet influential person saying "that's a bad idea" should highlight that maybe we don't have sufficiently robust institutional controls in place to avoid a bloody conflict indefinitely. >>>The worst thing that could realistically happen in Korea is a collapse of North Korean regime. I'll absolutely agree with this though. There is a very poor understanding of the morale and motivations of most of the NK flag officers. We don't know which ones will outright surrender. We don't know which ones will say "Fuck it, attack the Imperialists!" We do have a reasonable understanding of the Kim regime's priorities: regime survival. So the status quo is preferable to the almost-guaranteed chaos that will ensue should the NK commanders suddenly find themselves in a power vacuum, especially if caused by a hostile foreign actor.