4 ms·

> I really feel like we’ll look back at how we ignored it for so long shamefully One of the big problems has long been that North-Korea has a large network of

by arp242 3y ago

> I really feel like we’ll look back at how we ignored it for so long shamefully One of the big problems has long been that North-Korea has a large network of artillery within shelling distance of Seoul. Now they also have rockets and nukes and stuff, but even without those any serious threat to NK would come with devastating cost of civilian lives in South-Korea. See e.g. [1], which estimates that "the DPRK could cause thousands of casualties in just a minute and more than 100,000 in an hour" and some of the case studies in that report have more than 200,000 in an hour. And all of that assumes only conventional HE rounds – no chemicals or nukes. And all of that is in the first hour alone: a full war would cost millions of lives (during the Korean war, South Korean casualties were about a million civilians and 250,000 soldiers). You need to move carefully when you've got almost 6,000 pieces of artillery pointed at your head, never mind nukes, and the people in control of them seem rather unhinged. I've seen people express this kind of "we should have just intervened" opinion before, and in principle I don't disagree, but it's really not that simple: both due to the strong risk of heavy civilian casualties, and the geopolitical impact with the USSR during the cold war (and to lesser degree, contemporary China and Russia – I can already see China invade Taiwan using "but you invaded NK!" as an excuse). [1]: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA619-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA619-1.html

graypegg 3y ago
That’s a good point, I was wrong to use “ignore”. It’s a lot more complicated.
leeter 3y ago
It's a complicated issue. Part of the problem is nobody really wants to fix it because the costs will be enormous. When and if the regime falls it's going to take tens of billions of dollars in aid to keep it from destabilizing South Korea. Not to mention the massive refugee crisis that will occur. I'm pretty sure that's one of the many reasons why China hasn't dealt with it. Because the vast majority of refugees would go north across their border. China has made it clear they aren't particularly thrilled with the idea of having someone not under their thumb next to their border as well. As a consequence of that... the "best" scenario would probably be China invading. But "best" is definitely in scare quotes as that could go VERY wrong very very quickly. I think the PRC is aware of that too. So unfortunately that means the DPRK will starve, because the realpolitik is such that solving the issue is just not a tenable solution for all the other parties.
- arp242 3y ago
  > When and if the regime falls it's going to take tens of billions of dollars in aid to keep it from destabilizing South Korea. On the other hand, the current costs of hostilities isn't free either as militaries don't pay for themselves; e.g. a 10% decrease in military spending for countries like South-Korea and Japan would save billions every year (right now, both are increasing spending). I agree it's not a simple situation because there are 25 million mostly uneducated starving North-Koreans you've got to do something with, but in purely financial terms you're probably going to save money in the long run.
- pydry 3y ago
  The regime is very stable - contrary to the impression western media imparts. It could easily continue for another 50 years. Part of the problem is that threatening North Korea plays into the hands of the Kims - it makes the "strongman leader" more attractive. Invading Iraq and tearing Libya to pieces really didn't help.
GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
That's military industrial complex propaganda. The North Korean air force consists of just 40 MiG 29's. The ROK military outclasses NK in every way that matters, including 167 F16's, 60 F15E's, and 40 F35's. This is in addition to the 160 F16's the US has stationed there.
- arp242 3y ago
  I'll assume that is the case, but that says exactly nothing about artillery capability or the damage this can do in just a matter of hours. How many pieces of (often fortified) artillery do you think those 427 places can take out before shelling starts?
  - GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
    The report you link to provides no evidence that NK has the capability to launch such an attack. The idea that NK has 6000 serviceable artillery tubes and large stocks of serviceable ammunition in the field and ready to be used within an hour is difficult to believable, especially without evidence. This would require propositioned weapons and munitions similar to the Maginot line, which NK does not have nor can it afford. I'll also point out that ROK and the US maintain 24/7 surveillance of NK depots and munitions storage areas (and pretty much everything else). NK could not attempt to mount such an operation without being detected. Unless they use their 100 year old stealth biplanes, then all bets are off.
- foverzar 3y ago
  > air force It's just a single branch of military, quite useless if there is modern missile-based air defense in place.
nazka 3y ago
I was about to say the same thing. It’s not that it was ignored. They are doing their awful things because they have guns pointing at South Korea while being backed by China. And now some quite capable cruse missiles.

by arp242 3y ago

graypegg 3y ago

That’s a good point, I was wrong to use “ignore”. It’s a lot more complicated.

leeter 3y ago

It's a complicated issue. Part of the problem is nobody really wants to fix it because the costs will be enormous. When and if the regime falls it's going to take tens of billions of dollars in aid to keep it from destabilizing South Korea. Not to mention the massive refugee crisis that will occur. I'm pretty sure that's one of the many reasons why China hasn't dealt with it. Because the vast majority of refugees would go north across their border. China has made it clear they aren't particularly thrilled with the idea of having someone not under their thumb next to their border as well. As a consequence of that... the "best" scenario would probably be China invading. But "best" is definitely in scare quotes as that could go VERY wrong very very quickly. I think the PRC is aware of that too. So unfortunately that means the DPRK will starve, because the realpolitik is such that solving the issue is just not a tenable solution for all the other parties.

arp242 3y ago
> When and if the regime falls it's going to take tens of billions of dollars in aid to keep it from destabilizing South Korea. On the other hand, the current costs of hostilities isn't free either as militaries don't pay for themselves; e.g. a 10% decrease in military spending for countries like South-Korea and Japan would save billions every year (right now, both are increasing spending). I agree it's not a simple situation because there are 25 million mostly uneducated starving North-Koreans you've got to do something with, but in purely financial terms you're probably going to save money in the long run.
pydry 3y ago
The regime is very stable - contrary to the impression western media imparts. It could easily continue for another 50 years. Part of the problem is that threatening North Korea plays into the hands of the Kims - it makes the "strongman leader" more attractive. Invading Iraq and tearing Libya to pieces really didn't help.

GartzenDeHaes 3y ago

That's military industrial complex propaganda. The North Korean air force consists of just 40 MiG 29's. The ROK military outclasses NK in every way that matters, including 167 F16's, 60 F15E's, and 40 F35's. This is in addition to the 160 F16's the US has stationed there.

arp242 3y ago
I'll assume that is the case, but that says exactly nothing about artillery capability or the damage this can do in just a matter of hours. How many pieces of (often fortified) artillery do you think those 427 places can take out before shelling starts?
- GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
  The report you link to provides no evidence that NK has the capability to launch such an attack. The idea that NK has 6000 serviceable artillery tubes and large stocks of serviceable ammunition in the field and ready to be used within an hour is difficult to believable, especially without evidence. This would require propositioned weapons and munitions similar to the Maginot line, which NK does not have nor can it afford. I'll also point out that ROK and the US maintain 24/7 surveillance of NK depots and munitions storage areas (and pretty much everything else). NK could not attempt to mount such an operation without being detected. Unless they use their 100 year old stealth biplanes, then all bets are off.
foverzar 3y ago
> air force It's just a single branch of military, quite useless if there is modern missile-based air defense in place.

nazka 3y ago

I was about to say the same thing. It’s not that it was ignored. They are doing their awful things because they have guns pointing at South Korea while being backed by China. And now some quite capable cruse missiles.