Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Conflict in the Koreas: The North Attacks the South

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Conflict in the Koreas: The North Attacks the South (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/158977-conflict-koreas-north-attacks-south.html)

Conflict in the Koreas: The North Attacks the South

Quote:

North Korea: a deadly attack, a counter-strike – now Koreans hold their breath

World appeals for calm after bombardment from North Korea leaves two marines dead and tensions high on the peninsula

Tania Branigan in Beijing and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 23 November 2010 20.23 GMT

The US and other countries around the world pleaded for restraint today after North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells at a South Korean island, killing two soldiers and injuring civilians.

With tensions running high on the peninsula, the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, met his top military in an underground bunker in Seoul and ordered the air force to strike North Korean missile bases if there is any further provocation.

The clash is one of the most serious since the end of the Korean war in 1953. Relations were already strained by the revelation at the weekend that North Korea has a new uranium enrichment facility.

In an immediate response to the artillery barrage, Seoul scrambled F-16 fighter jets to the western sea and returned fire.

Diplomats and analysts in Washington and elsewhere around the world warned that while neither the North nor South wanted all-out war, the risk of incidents such as today's was that it could tip the peninsula into an accidental war.

There appeared to be little appetite in either Seoul or Washington for military retaliation or a new round of sanctions.

The North, in a short statement carried by the official KCNA news agency, said the South had fired first despite repeated warnings. It threatened more strikes if the South crossed the maritime border by "even 0.001 millimetre".

The South said its troops had not been firing towards the North during their live-fire exercise, which was part of regular drills in the area.

South Korean officials said two marines were killed in the attack and 17 injured, while three civilians were wounded. A Seoul-based broadcaster showed images of smoke rising from buildings on Yeonpyeong, which lies just 75 miles west of Seoul. It is home to about 1,600 civilians and 1,000 soldiers.

Lee Chun-ok, a 54-year-old island resident, told the Associated Press she was watching TV when she heard artillery and a wall and door in her home collapsed.

"I thought I would die," said Lee, who was evacuated to the port city of Incheon. "I'm still terrified."

The president's spokeswoman Kim Hee-jung said after his meeting with military leaders: "President Lee instructed [the military] to strike North Korea's missile base near its coastline artillery positions if necessary ... if there is an indication of further provocation".

The US president, Barack Obama, who was woken just before 4am by his national security adviser, Tom Donilon, to be informed of the attack, issued a statement condemning it and planned to speak to the South Korean president late today.

Bill Burton, a White House spokesman travelling with Obama aboard Air Force One today, said: "North Korea has a pattern of doing things that are provocative. This is a particularly outrageous act." But he offered no specifics on any action.

Obama took office in January last year offering to talk directly with the North in an effort to persuade them to abandon a nuclear weapons programme, but the North has responded with missile launches, a nuclear test and the alleged torpedoing this year of a South Korean naval ship, the Cheonan, killing 46.

Some analysts saw the artillery attack as part of the North's campaign to have international sanctions withdrawn and to secure a promise of more aid in return for denuclearisation. Others saw it as a localised incident, with the North responding to military exercises by the South that had become too close.

The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, condemned the barrage, saying: "The attack was one of the gravest incidents since the end of the Korean war." But he called for restraint.

The UN security council briefly discussed the incident but made no statement. China, North Korea's closest ally, has a veto on the security council and could block any condemnation .

In London the British foreign secretary, William Hague, urged Pyongyang to stop further "unprovoked" attacks.

Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said there was a "colossal danger" of escalation, Reuters reported.

China steered clear of assigning blame. A foreign ministry spokesman urged both sides to "do more to contribute to peace and stability in the region".

Stephen Bosworth, the US special envoy on North Korea, who was in Beijing , told reporters he had discussed the clash with the Chinese foreign minister and they agreed both sides should show restraint.

The Pentagon played down the prospect of a military response or more sanctions. "It's hard to pile more sanctions upon the North than are already there," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.

Han Seung-joo, a former South Korean foreign minister, said the attack was the most serious clash since the end of the Korean war in that it targeted land.

Han said: "It is not only because it involves civilian casualties, but the deliberateness of the bombardment."

But he added: "I don't think it will escalate into anything much more serious."

Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the Asian Studies Centre, part of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington thinktank, said: "The situation on the peninsula is tense but unlikely to lead to war."

Professor Chu Shulong, an expert on international security at Beijing's Tsinghua University, said: "North Korea has always been a place that likes to make trouble to get attention from the international community ... They can start a new round of negotiations and get supplies from other countries. This is what they have been doing during the past 20 years."

Paul Stares of the Council of Foreign Relations predicted the US would put pressure on China to rein in the North, while China would urge the US to lessen military and diplomatic pressure.

Peter Beck, a research fellow with the Council, told Associated Press: "It brings us one step closer to the brink of war.

"I don't think the North would seek war by intention, but war by accident, something spiralling out of control, has always been my fear."

North Korea: a deadly attack, a counter-strike ? now Koreans hold their breath | World news | The Guardian

I'm just hearing about this myself, and so the details are just sinking in.

It appears that North Korea responded to a South Korean missile launch with an attack on a small island, killing two soldiers and wounding civilians.

Some are saying it won't escalate further, but others aren't so sure based on North Korea's innate instability.

What do you think?

If the South retaliates, then it will become quite a conflict. However, I have no doubt that the US is currently working furiously to stop the South from retaliation. The South, who is impotent without our military support, will act tough but secretly be thankful the US asked them to back down. Queue another 60 years of babysitting the arbitrary "naughty line".

The US should pack up and come home - save on the military expense.

I guess the big question is what is the likelihood of a retaliation? And will the North respond like this again in the near future?

Since no one knows how China will react if pushed, there can't be a retaliation. Let's face it, the North sunk a submarine this year and nothing happened. So, they aren't ~reallly~ going to do anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2845123)

Well, as the former South Korean foreign minister states in the article, it's a bit different in that it was a deliberate bombardment (land target), plus it involved civilians.

Personally, I'm not all that concerned about a retaliation. I'm more concerned about the North becoming more emboldened/paranoid/fanatical.

alot of what i've been reading when i've had time this afternoon (busy? who knew?) links this to a few factors, all of which function to contain it:

the regime change in the north. the best outline of this is in today's le monde. the argument goes that dear leader is handing off power soon to the brilliant comrade, which creates a degree of question about the stability/continuity of the regime. so exploiting a south korean faux pas from last week's military "exercise"===which north korea interpreted to be "i know, kids...let's play Invade the North...Yay! Fun!===but which the south & us talked about in terms of "well they had prior notice..."---anyway that there was some dick-waving associated with this exercise had provided the north a chance to do some dick waving of its own with the effect, this argument goes, of assuring folk regionally and domestically, that it's the same old same old.

and apparently there's also this whole north korea needing food and washington and south korea not letting it in for whatever reason, likely connected to the nice north korean nuclear program, about which new infotainment came out last week by way of some guy from slac who said, basically

they showed me a slick looking nuclear processing facility

which meant that all those claims

we have a slick looking nuclear facility

mean something now.

as usual, the reality is that it's really the south that likes the status quo because they're convinced as they have been that changing it would mean they'd be swamped with people moving south

this even though they seem to have no problem fucking with food aid.

but this is nukes we're talking about here.

all in all, it's obviously volatile, but i don't thing this is armagiddeon time.

rb-

Don't you know? We don't pass food to commies above the 38th. That's why you've never tasted grits. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2845123)

China wants a destabilized North Korea even less than South Korea does, they're the ones who would have to deal with 20 million refugees coming across the border. There won't be any retaliation because North Korea has spent the entire time since the "end" of the Korean war digging in 8000+ artillery pieces and missile launchers along with tunnels into the DMZ and South Korea, there's simply no effective way to disable it all at once, and estimates of North Korean capabilities I've read are a sustained rate of fire of 500 to 1000 shells and missiles per second for the first hour of attacks with minimum casualty estimates around 100,000 South Korean soldiers and 1 to 2 million civilians in Seoul. It's mutually assured destruction without the nukes.

Part of me wishes the north would just cross that line so we can lay the smack down and end this bullshit. If only we could invent a missile that could hone in on Kim's head and explode just it and not the thousands of innocent people he surrounds him with.

It sounds like the South was like a kid in a backseat of a car saying, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you.", yet then crying "Mommy" when the other kid hits back.

*And NK allegedly sunk the sub, although I doubt any propaganda coming from either side. There are about 5 other players that could have targeted the sub for other reasons.