Started By
Message
Wouldn't it be in North Korea's best interest to unite with the South?
Posted on 12/24/17 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 12/24/17 at 1:46 pm
All they have up there is a military that they spend too much money on. They will never relinquish power but surely we can find a way to assassinate their top brass and unite the factions back to a singular Korea.
6
Posted on 12/24/17 at 1:51 pm to Commander Data
sure, for the people but not for the dictator
Posted on 12/24/17 at 2:55 pm to Commander Data
Yes it would be in North Korea's best interest, that's why they invaded in 1950, and attempted to assassinate the South Korean President in 1968. It is still a goal, that's why they refer to Americans as occupiers, have government bodies that make efforts toward reunification, and allow South Koreans to visit North Korea.
There is no question that it would be in North Korea's best interest to unite with the South, that isn't the issue. The question is who's interest would it NOT be in?
Assuming a united Korea under ROK leadership similar to how the DDR was absorbed by West Germany....
1. China
a. Lose a buffer state against US military presence in ROK
b. Lose diplomatic bargaining chip with their ability to influence the DPRK. Currently they can trade "We'll rein in Kim" for economic concessions and other things, losing the DPRK takes that chip off the board.
c. Waves of North Korean refugees would cross the border, in to an area that already has substantial amounts of ethnic Korean Chinese, and be expensive to care for. That's part of why we've seen huge Chinese troop mobilizations on their border.
d. The DPRK requires substantial US Military commitment (multiple carrier groups at the moment, Army divisions, etc) to babysit and keeps us busy, preventing us from countering Chinese activity in other places like the South China Sea. If the DPRK collapses they would face more US resistance in other areas they're trying to expand.
e. Human Rights: The DPRK is currently public enemy number 1 for the international human rights crusaders, if they were to collapse China would get way more attention which they don't really want.
f. Economic threat posed by a united Korea as South Korea is already an Asian powerhouse.
g. Internal Politics: It would give tremendous energy to Chinese dissidents, democrats, and reformers. They would see North Korea's collapse as a motivation and a model to move against the CPC.
====
2. Russia almost identical to China but all to a lesser degree and points C. and E. apply much less.
====
3. South Korea, they talk a big game about reunification publicly but privately they're substantially less committed.
a. Social Cost: There would be a huge population shift, millions of North Koreans would move south putting a strain on housing, education, healthcare, social services, everything.
b. Economic Cost: When Germany reunified West Germany had a population about four times as large and a GDP per capita about 1.6 times larger than East Germany. Thirty years on the former East Germany is still struggling to integrate with the rest of the country. North Korea has half the population of the South while South Koreans make an average of 29 times what the average North Korean makes in a year, reunification would be an economic nightmare.
c. Political cost: My personal belief is that a united Korea would experience Finlandization by China, basically they would have to sacrifice some of their freedoms to placate their much larger and much pickier neighbor.
====
4. The United States
a. Fear of the precipitating event to Reunification...a War or Coup in the DPRK could very easily put us in direct confrontation with China which would be terrible for many reasons.
b. Loss of influence in Japan/Korea who allow us to station our military in their country, in large part, due to the DPRK. Reunificaiton would probably require a treaty similar to the Two Plus Four Agreement for Germany, and that treaty would probably include prohibitions on US military in the former DPRK and might include a withdrawal of the US Military from the entire peninsula. Even if it didn't, pressure from Japanese and Korean citizens would probably force withdrawal anyhow. This would be bad because we also use those installations as a check on China.
c. Cost: You just know our Government would somehow end up paying out the arse for humanitarian and developmental aid for the former DPRK.
====
5. Japan
a. Fear that it could lead to a confrontation with China.
b. Fear of the economic might of, and competition from, a united Korea.
c. Fear of how their sizable Korean minority would react as they are almost all loyal or sympathetic to the DPRK.
Everyone but the North Korean people have an interest and desire to keep the status quo.
If we were to assassinate their "top brass" we could very well start a war with China and they would probably invade the DPRK.
If some kind of North Korean junta were to assassinate Kim and the "top brass" it would probably do so with the backing of China and would enact some kind of modernization and opening of the country, Un is afraid of this and it's part of the reason he had his brother killed.
If North Koreans were to stage some kind of democratic coup without authority from China we'd see a Prague Spring 2.0.
North Korea, like Georgia and Ukraine, is not a vital, existential interest to the United States. It is for China just as Georgia and Ukraine are for Russia. If it were to come down to a showdown with China over the fate of the North Korean people we would back down just as we did with Ossetia, Donbass, etc.
The best we can hope for is a Chinese coup and gradual modernization with reunification in 50-100 years.
There is no question that it would be in North Korea's best interest to unite with the South, that isn't the issue. The question is who's interest would it NOT be in?
Assuming a united Korea under ROK leadership similar to how the DDR was absorbed by West Germany....
1. China
a. Lose a buffer state against US military presence in ROK
b. Lose diplomatic bargaining chip with their ability to influence the DPRK. Currently they can trade "We'll rein in Kim" for economic concessions and other things, losing the DPRK takes that chip off the board.
c. Waves of North Korean refugees would cross the border, in to an area that already has substantial amounts of ethnic Korean Chinese, and be expensive to care for. That's part of why we've seen huge Chinese troop mobilizations on their border.
d. The DPRK requires substantial US Military commitment (multiple carrier groups at the moment, Army divisions, etc) to babysit and keeps us busy, preventing us from countering Chinese activity in other places like the South China Sea. If the DPRK collapses they would face more US resistance in other areas they're trying to expand.
e. Human Rights: The DPRK is currently public enemy number 1 for the international human rights crusaders, if they were to collapse China would get way more attention which they don't really want.
f. Economic threat posed by a united Korea as South Korea is already an Asian powerhouse.
g. Internal Politics: It would give tremendous energy to Chinese dissidents, democrats, and reformers. They would see North Korea's collapse as a motivation and a model to move against the CPC.
====
2. Russia almost identical to China but all to a lesser degree and points C. and E. apply much less.
====
3. South Korea, they talk a big game about reunification publicly but privately they're substantially less committed.
a. Social Cost: There would be a huge population shift, millions of North Koreans would move south putting a strain on housing, education, healthcare, social services, everything.
b. Economic Cost: When Germany reunified West Germany had a population about four times as large and a GDP per capita about 1.6 times larger than East Germany. Thirty years on the former East Germany is still struggling to integrate with the rest of the country. North Korea has half the population of the South while South Koreans make an average of 29 times what the average North Korean makes in a year, reunification would be an economic nightmare.
c. Political cost: My personal belief is that a united Korea would experience Finlandization by China, basically they would have to sacrifice some of their freedoms to placate their much larger and much pickier neighbor.
====
4. The United States
a. Fear of the precipitating event to Reunification...a War or Coup in the DPRK could very easily put us in direct confrontation with China which would be terrible for many reasons.
b. Loss of influence in Japan/Korea who allow us to station our military in their country, in large part, due to the DPRK. Reunificaiton would probably require a treaty similar to the Two Plus Four Agreement for Germany, and that treaty would probably include prohibitions on US military in the former DPRK and might include a withdrawal of the US Military from the entire peninsula. Even if it didn't, pressure from Japanese and Korean citizens would probably force withdrawal anyhow. This would be bad because we also use those installations as a check on China.
c. Cost: You just know our Government would somehow end up paying out the arse for humanitarian and developmental aid for the former DPRK.
====
5. Japan
a. Fear that it could lead to a confrontation with China.
b. Fear of the economic might of, and competition from, a united Korea.
c. Fear of how their sizable Korean minority would react as they are almost all loyal or sympathetic to the DPRK.
Everyone but the North Korean people have an interest and desire to keep the status quo.
If we were to assassinate their "top brass" we could very well start a war with China and they would probably invade the DPRK.
If some kind of North Korean junta were to assassinate Kim and the "top brass" it would probably do so with the backing of China and would enact some kind of modernization and opening of the country, Un is afraid of this and it's part of the reason he had his brother killed.
If North Koreans were to stage some kind of democratic coup without authority from China we'd see a Prague Spring 2.0.
North Korea, like Georgia and Ukraine, is not a vital, existential interest to the United States. It is for China just as Georgia and Ukraine are for Russia. If it were to come down to a showdown with China over the fate of the North Korean people we would back down just as we did with Ossetia, Donbass, etc.
The best we can hope for is a Chinese coup and gradual modernization with reunification in 50-100 years.
This post was edited on 12/24/17 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 12/24/17 at 3:50 pm to Commander Data
Follow up for this bit
I'm not so sure that we could. How would we do it? What are ways it's been done in the past?
1. Insertion of an American Military kill team: Would be extremely difficult to do, we could probably land or drop one easily enough, but I don't think we'd be able to get them close enough for them to kill Un. Pyongyang is not Abbottabad. Un will be heavily guarded at all times. Extracting them would be damn near impossible, it would be a suicide mission.
2. Insertion of a South Korean operative/team: Probably much higher chances of success just because they'd be able to move around more easily, although still with substantial difficulty. Still has many of the problems of an American kill team...it's just not going to be easy to get close to Un.
3. Missile: Would be easier and safer than kill teams or assassins but still difficult to work. Kim probably doesn't sleep in the same place every night and his movement is probably tightly controlled and not broadcast before the fact. We tried to get Saddam in the initial hours of the Iraq war this way and failed miserably. Best bet would be bombing a podium at one of the big mass parades but we'd never do that because it would look bad.
4. Poison the dude...we have zero access up there to pull that off. Like, none. We couldn't even sneak something on him at some international conference because he doesn't leave the country.
Your best bets would be to
1. Pay off or convince some North Korean with access to do it. Would be difficult with how tightly the North Koreans lockdown foreign visitors and communication.
2. Use some crazy new weapons system that isn't public like kinetic bombardment from a satellite or something.
3. Wait it out. Un is going to die very soon from all the smoking and his terrible diet. He's barely in his 30s and already has gout. He's fat as shite.
...and this is only talking about Un. Killing all of the top brass would be even more complex. It just isn't a realistic option.
quote:
we can find a way to assassinate their top brass
I'm not so sure that we could. How would we do it? What are ways it's been done in the past?
1. Insertion of an American Military kill team: Would be extremely difficult to do, we could probably land or drop one easily enough, but I don't think we'd be able to get them close enough for them to kill Un. Pyongyang is not Abbottabad. Un will be heavily guarded at all times. Extracting them would be damn near impossible, it would be a suicide mission.
2. Insertion of a South Korean operative/team: Probably much higher chances of success just because they'd be able to move around more easily, although still with substantial difficulty. Still has many of the problems of an American kill team...it's just not going to be easy to get close to Un.
3. Missile: Would be easier and safer than kill teams or assassins but still difficult to work. Kim probably doesn't sleep in the same place every night and his movement is probably tightly controlled and not broadcast before the fact. We tried to get Saddam in the initial hours of the Iraq war this way and failed miserably. Best bet would be bombing a podium at one of the big mass parades but we'd never do that because it would look bad.
4. Poison the dude...we have zero access up there to pull that off. Like, none. We couldn't even sneak something on him at some international conference because he doesn't leave the country.
Your best bets would be to
1. Pay off or convince some North Korean with access to do it. Would be difficult with how tightly the North Koreans lockdown foreign visitors and communication.
2. Use some crazy new weapons system that isn't public like kinetic bombardment from a satellite or something.
3. Wait it out. Un is going to die very soon from all the smoking and his terrible diet. He's barely in his 30s and already has gout. He's fat as shite.
...and this is only talking about Un. Killing all of the top brass would be even more complex. It just isn't a realistic option.
Posted on 12/25/17 at 1:14 am to KSGamecock
Send him a bucket of KFC to speed up the process
Posted on 12/25/17 at 10:00 am to Commander Data
Well we whacked a few heads of state in the 50's and 60's, and covertly toppled a few governments too. In the long run all of that came back to bite us in the butt.
One of the main reasons Iran still holds a grudge against us is that we toppled their government back in the day and put the Shah in power. They have other reasons of course, but its not like they've forgotten that one.
We toppled the South Vietnamese government to put in someone else and that backfired on us as well.
Not to mention whacking the entire leadership of a country is easier said then done. What if you get Un but his sister takes power and turns out to be an even bigger nutbag? A nutbag, I might add, that would feel she has nothing to lose since she knows we popped her brother and might take a shot at her.
Do we really want to destabilize a country with nuclear weapons that is sitting next to three of our biggest trading partners? A country that may, or may not, be able to hit Hawaii and the West coast.
Don't get me wrong, I've visited Los Angeles before and didn't care for it. Starting something that gets them nuked does seem to be a harsh though.
My advice would be to calm things down with North Korea and wait them out. Sooner or later they are going to fall apart and South Korea and China can take care of things.
One of the main reasons Iran still holds a grudge against us is that we toppled their government back in the day and put the Shah in power. They have other reasons of course, but its not like they've forgotten that one.
We toppled the South Vietnamese government to put in someone else and that backfired on us as well.
Not to mention whacking the entire leadership of a country is easier said then done. What if you get Un but his sister takes power and turns out to be an even bigger nutbag? A nutbag, I might add, that would feel she has nothing to lose since she knows we popped her brother and might take a shot at her.
Do we really want to destabilize a country with nuclear weapons that is sitting next to three of our biggest trading partners? A country that may, or may not, be able to hit Hawaii and the West coast.
Don't get me wrong, I've visited Los Angeles before and didn't care for it. Starting something that gets them nuked does seem to be a harsh though.
My advice would be to calm things down with North Korea and wait them out. Sooner or later they are going to fall apart and South Korea and China can take care of things.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 1:25 pm to Commander Data
quote:
ouldn't it be in North Korea's best interest to unite with the South?
For the average NK people sure but then Un couldn't be a dictator
Posted on 12/29/17 at 10:49 pm to Commander Data
They tried that in 1950, and lost.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News