The questions STRATFOR is focusing on after the Nov. 23 attack are as follows:- Is North Korea attempting to test or push back against limits on conventional attacks? If so, are these attacks meant to test South Korea and its allies ahead of an all-out military action, or is the North seeking a political response as it has with its nuclear program? If the former, we must reassess North Korea’s behavior and ascertain whether the North Koreans are preparing to try a military action against South Korea — perhaps trying to seize one or more of the five South Korean islands along the NLL. If the latter, then at what point will they actually cross a red line that will trigger a response?
- Is South Korea content to constantly redefine “acceptable” North Korean actions? Does South Korea see something in the North that we do not? The South Koreans have good awareness of what is going on in North Korea, and vice versa. The two sides are having a conversation about something and using limited conventional force to get a point across. We should focus on what the underlying issue is.
- What is it that South Korea is afraid of in the North? North Korea gives an American a guided tour of a uranium enrichment facility, then fires across the NLL a couple of days after the news breaks. The South does not respond. It seems that South Korea is afraid of either real power or real weakness in the North, but we do not know which.
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101123_north_korea_moving_another_red_line
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wait a second, do you go charging onto the stage when you go to the orchestra or something? And even if that simile did make sense you still wouldn't be able to do anything about North Korea.
no i don't. i fact i meant the opposite. and these attacks and the whole thing is orchestrated. so i'm not going to pretend to act surprise by this play that's already been predetermined by powers greater than us. so just sit back and watch this heavily instigated conflict become worse than it is.
then the u.s'll get involved and so will china and that's the part of the movie that everyone's waiting to see, hu?
this tragicomedy's entitled "it's gonna be the last decade all over again."
Originally posted by inimalistBut SK did retaliate. And besides, they are the same people, their situation shouldn't be analyzed as a standard international conflict.
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101123_north_korea_moving_another_red_line
Originally posted by 753Excellent point, these are all the same people only one half it ruled by a dictator and brainwashed into believing all sorts of sillyness. If the dictatorship were to somehow fall, these two countries would unite like Germany did and they´d live "happily ever after".
But SK did retaliate. And besides, they are the same people, their situation shouldn't be analyzed as a standard international conflict.
I wonder how far N.Korea can go before a heavy retaliation takes place, ie an air strike on the artillery batteries from where the attacks are comming. Which could cause an excallation to full scale conflict.
I heard on the news that the dictators son is in charge of the military now, maybe he is naive and cannot judge where the line of tolerance is.
I the US and S.Korea were to attack a massive missile and air strike onslaught against the military installations, power plants and nuclear bomb silo´s (which can be located by satellites) might be a good option, if China didn´t get involved it would be over in a week imo.
What use is a million man army against advanced weaponry. Which is the main problem, to stop the dictator using all the poor sods as cannon fodder.
Heavy casualtys on their brothers isn´t what S.Korea would want methinks.
Originally posted by 753
But SK did retaliate.
The larger premise of the article I quoted that from was talking about how NK has, almost systematically, challanged every "line" set by SK or the US in terms of aggression (nuclear tests, sinking subs, etc).
The retaliation they are talking isn't in terms of scrambling F-16s or response artillery fire, but a grander type of retaliation against NK, who is again pushing the limits of what SK and the US have told them would be accepted.
Because we don't have a lot of access to the inner circle of the NK government, it remains to be seen if they are testing the resolve of these types of threats, or if it a number of other issues. However, if there is no type of greater retaliation, it does send the message to NK that these escalations are "permitable".
Originally posted by 753
And besides, they are the same people, their situation shouldn't be analyzed as a standard international conflict.
They both certainly see eachother and themselves as distinct geo-political entities. I don't think the racial similarity plays that big of a deal here. The goals and motivations of the NK and SK state can be analyzed in terms of political motivations, but I'll agree it needs a specific contextual paradigm, though this could be said of any context.
The Balkans framwork wont work in Palestine, which wouldn't work in Iran, which wouldn't work in Korea.
the people still see themselves as the same people, they've displayed this often over the years. the regimes have different natures and agendas, but they are still influenced by the sense of a single nation, part of which has been hijacked by an enemy political group. there is no doubt they each want to unify the country under its own system.