News NK Attack on SK: International Community Response Needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter g33kski11z
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The recent North Korean attack on South Korea has sparked discussions about the international community's response, with many questioning the effectiveness of sanctions alone. There is a belief that significant military action may be necessary to deter North Korea, as some argue that the current international stance lacks resolve. The situation is complicated by territorial disputes, with North Korea claiming rights to the area where the attack occurred, raising questions about the legality of South Korea's military exercises. The role of China is also highlighted, as it holds considerable influence over North Korea and could be pivotal in any diplomatic resolution. Overall, the conversation reflects a deep concern over escalating tensions and the potential for further conflict in the region.
  • #31
Jack21222 said:
Completely disagree. We are not a superpower, and we have no obligation to try and "keep peace." Where does this supposed "obligation" come from? Also, what is the definition of "superpower," and why does the US qualify?

I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.
Misinformation. The US did not just 'plant' a base in S. Korea.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Newai said:
At war, sure. But isn't the "retaliation" for the exercises a violation of the Korean Armistice Agreement?

Perhaps South Korea broke it by attacking North Korean territory especially after warnings not to.
 
  • #33
I just want to make it clear that I would fully support an attack on North Korea assuming it would be done effectively and without much collateral damage. However I'm not going to be mad or sad when South Korea is basically taunting them or prodding them knowing the North will respond.

Perhaps the North should have shown restraint but they didn't and in my view they have the right in this particular situation to make that decision.
 
  • #34
zomgwtf said:
...
As well no civilians were killed just 2 soldiers (in South Korea) so if any civilians DID die it would be North Koreans from the artillery exchange that occurred from the south.
13 others were injured and 60 houses were set on fire.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-is-worst-against-civilians-in-20-years.html

So this how it went:

South Korea planned a military exercise in known disputed territory.
Disputed? Very well, the territory in which you reside is disputed by me. If you enter it again tonight I'll take that as deliberate antagonism and lob a few shells in there.
 
  • #35
zomgwtf said:
Perhaps South Korea broke it by attacking North Korean territory especially after warnings not to.

What NK territory did the South attack?
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
I don't think the international community has the stones to do anything real, so it will require tanks rolling across the border before they do anything more than some sanctions.
The first question is whether or not South Korea and Lee Myung-bak want to do anything real.
 
  • #37
zomgwtf said:
Perhaps South Korea broke it by attacking North Korean territory especially after warnings not to.
Source?
 
  • #38
mheslep said:
Misinformation. The US did not just 'plant' a base in S. Korea.

No, we planted a dozen or so.
 
  • #39
Greg Bernhardt said:
Our presence is keeping at least a few countries from being invaded. Japan would be in big trouble if we removed our troops, I think SK as well. If NK attacks SK with our troops inside, NK knows they are finished real quick.

How is that our problem?

Keeping peace and standing up for freedom, yeah what a horrible thing to spend money on. I don't get the American attitude of hoarding everything for ourselves and building a dome over our country. We are all globally in this together. We are all brothers and sisters.

You're very altruistic with my money.
 
  • #40
Jack21222 said:
How is that our problem?

You're very altruistic with my money.

nice
 
  • #41
Jack21222 said:
How is that our problem?

People here in the US were asking the same question about the wars in Europe just before the Axis powers attacked us.
 
  • #42
Its time to bomb NK into oblivion. NK should be the next target in the war against terror. Afghanistan and and Iraq are now success stories, it's time to put the far east to peace.
 
  • #43
DanP said:
Its time to bomb NK into oblivion. NK should be the net target. Afghanistan and and Iraq are now success stories, it's time to put the far east to peace.

Which will create a massive refugee crisis for China and encourage the North to step on Seoul, which is a hop and a skip away from the North.

They have a few casualties. I think the idea is to calm everyone down.
 
  • #44
Newai said:
Which will create a massive refugee crisis for China and encourage the North to step on Seoul, which is a hop and a skip away from the North.

I don't agree. China can handle the refugees, should they wish so. NK is a terrorist threat, and they must be brought on their knees. If negotiations fail, war should be pursued.

Afghanistan and Iraq are under control now, they are success stories in every possible way. NK can be too. Even better, the ppl of NK can be freed by the communist opressions, and finally allowed to rejoice with their kin from South, in a singale country.

Exterminate the vermin in the north, and allow the fine ppl on N Korea to find themselves reunited in their family. As it was did with East Germany.

Newai said:
They have a few casualties. I think the idea is to calm everyone down.

? Even 1 dead human dead in a terrorist attack is reason enough to hunt down the perpetrators in whatever holes they will find fit to hide.
 
  • #45
Don't know much about the area but maybe North Korea figures that with the shape of the economy, the U.S. can't really afford to intervene. They seem to not have much to lose at this point (that's just what I've seen via news though).
 
  • #46
DanP said:
I don't agree. China can handle the refugees, should they wish so. NK is a terrorist threat, and they must be brought on their knees. If negotiations fail, war should be pursued.

Afghanistan and Iraq are under control now, they are success stories in every possible way. NK can be too. Even better, the ppl of NK can be freed by the communist opressions, and finally allowed to rejoice with their kin from South, in a singale country.

Exterminate the vermin in the north, and allow the fine ppl on N Korea to find themselves reunited in their family. As it was did with East Germany.
The scale you suggest might create a refugee crisis that China can not handle. The bad thing is that if they can handle it, they may also step into NK and take over. That's a scary prospect.
 
  • #47
Newai said:
The scale you suggest might create a refugee crisis that China can not handle. The bad thing is that if they can handle it, they may also step into NK and take over. That's a scary prospect.

Well, either way, NK will cease to exist :P Which is a step ahead.
 
  • #48
Jack21222 said:
Completely disagree. We are not a superpower, and we have no obligation to try and "keep peace." Where does this supposed "obligation" come from? Also, what is the definition of "superpower," and why does the US qualify?

Now, granted the US is on a downward spiral (repairable, but not as powerful as we once were) but, to say that we are not a superpower is, IMHO a little nuts.. and the basis for this? our economic influence, military power, etc...

as for 'keeping the peace' .. same rules that apply on the school yard.. some kid picks on a little kid, another bigger kid comes by and 'resolves' the issues between the two smaller kids...
 
  • #49
Newai said:
People here in the US were asking the same question about the wars in Europe just before the Axis powers attacked us.

Very clever to use the term "axis powers" to conflate the war in Europe with Japan attacking us. Hope you didn't pull any muscles during that stretch.

How about all of the wars we didn't get involved in and DIDN'T get attacked? I know there are very few wars in the past century that the United States didn't stick its nose in, but there were a few. Whenever a war breaks out on the other side of the world, you can't just jump into the fight because "what if one of them decides to attack us?" That's a horrible reason to go to war.
 
  • #50
DanP said:
Well, either way, NK will cease to exist :P Which is a step ahead.
Different political geography, new problems, possibly more than a few tens of thousands of deaths, families broken, children sold and exploited... Oh wait, that's the success story of Iraq.

Nothing solved.
 
  • #51
Jack21222 said:
I know there are very few wars in the past century that the United States didn't stick its nose in, but there were a few. Whenever a war breaks out on the other side of the world, you can't just jump into the fight because "what if one of them decides to attack us?" That's a horrible reason to go to war.

But you do jump for geopolitical control. Its reason enough to jump in any war whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Jack21222 said:
Very clever to use the term "axis powers" to conflate the war in Europe with Japan attacking us. Hope you didn't pull any muscles during that stretch.
It doesn't matter. But I can deflate it:

People were saying the same about the Second Sino-Japanese War.
How about all of the wars we didn't get involved in and DIDN'T get attacked? I know there are very few wars in the past century that the United States didn't stick its nose in, but there were a few. Whenever a war breaks out on the other side of the world, you can't just jump into the fight because "what if one of them decides to attack us?" That's a horrible reason to go to war.
I don't see how this addresses my comment.
 
  • #53
Newai said:
Different political geography, new problems, possibly more than a few tens of thousands of deaths, families broken, children sold and exploited... Oh wait, that's the success story of Iraq.

Nothing solved.

Change shouldn't scare anyone. And yes, Middle east is a success story.
 
  • #54
Newai said:
I don't see how this addresses my comment.

The only point that can be drawn from your comment, as far as I can tell, is "Once, we didn't preemptively jump in a foreign war and then we were attacked. Therefore, we must jump in every war so we don't get attacked."

If that wasn't your point, please clarify.

If that was your point, I provided a set of counterexamples; wars where we didn't jump in and weren't subsequently attacked.

Newai said:
Different political geography, new problems, possibly more than a few tens of thousands of deaths, families broken, children sold and exploited... Oh wait, that's the success story of Iraq.

Nothing solved.

Why do you support another "success story" like Iraq in North Korea then?
 
  • #55
Jack21222 said:
No, we planted a dozen or so.
We have bases in S Korea because of attacks by N Korea in 1950.
 
  • #56
Jack21222 said:
The only point that can be drawn from your comment, as far as I can tell, is "Once, we didn't preemptively jump in a foreign war and then we were attacked. Therefore, we must jump in every war so we don't get attacked."

If that wasn't your point, please clarify.
I spoke only of involvement. That doesn't mean to get right in there and fire our cannons at every target.

Why do you support another "success story" like Iraq in North Korea then?
I don't. What do you mean?
 
  • #57
DanP said:
Change shouldn't scare anyone. And yes, Middle east is a success story.

I'll pull out of this segment for the sake of keeping this thread on target. Maybe a separate thread?
 
  • #58
Jack21222 said:
Completely disagree. We are not a superpower,

Yes we are. We have been the superpower for the last few decades since the Soviet Union collapsed. When the USSR dissolved, it was seen by some that the U.S. would become just one nation amongst many other nations, all fairly equal. Instead, a unipolar world formed where you had the USA as the sole dominant superpower, and everyone else.

It was predicted that this period of American "hegemony" if you will, would only last for a few decades however, probably due to the rise of other nations such as China. But even if that becomes the case, the U.S. will still remain a major superpower.

and we have no obligation to try and "keep peace." Where does this supposed "obligation" come from?

We have an obligation to protect free peoples around the world from bullies. Really, the free world overall has this obligation to protect the other free nations. If a liberal democracy is being bullied by some dictatorship, the free world has an obligation to do their best to protect it and aid it.

Also, what is the definition of "superpower," and why does the US qualify?

I don't know if there's a specific definition, but considering the U.S. has the biggest and most influential economy, strongest military, everyone pays attention to who our President is, what we do, look to us for leadership on issues, etc...

I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.

The U.S. doesn't just "plant" bases. If a country tells us to leave, we will. Our base in South Korea is because of North Korea attacking the South as Evo mentioned. Our base in Japan is because we stayed in Japan after World War II to rebuild and then because of the Cold War. Our base in Germany was similar, because after WWII we helped rebuild and also the Cold War.

There was a point in this country's history where we didn't even keep a standing army in our own country. Now we keep a standing army during peacetime in other peoples countries.

That was back during the 19th century when the British Empire was the primary world superpower and the U.S. could piggyback off of the military security they provided (at least when we weren't fighting them). It was also back before things like nuclear weapons, machine guns, battle tanks, and so forth.

Not having a standing military and proper equipment caused us to un-uncessarilly get our butts handed to us to a degree early in WWII and I think even WWI.

After WWII, we had the threat of the Soviet Union. You have to maintain a permanent standing military and constantly develop new weapons and technologies with such a threat, otherwise you'll end up dangerously behind should war ever have broken out.

And I pay for it with my taxes. Wonderful.

Your taxes paid for a military that contributed enormously to our economic growth over the years while also keeping the Soviet Union at bay.
 
  • #59
Jack21222 said:
And I pay for it with my taxes. Wonderful.

Actually, you do not pay anything. You owe the state taxes as a effect of a social contract.
What the state does with the revenue from the tax, it is not anymore your business. They are not your money, to haggle how they are spent. You just payed your debt.

If you are unhappy with how the government spends the budget, you can always change your electoral options in several years, and hope that the new representatives will fare better.
 
  • #60
Evo said:
We have bases in S Korea because of attacks by N Korea in 1950.

Right. We planted bases in S. Korea because of attacks by N. Korea in 1950. I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps there is another definition for "planted" that I'm unaware of. To me, it means "placed."
 

Similar threads

News Why is the US ignoring the violence in Syria while intervening in Libya?
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
22K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
News Downing Street - New memos released
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • Sticky
Physics Forums Global Guidelines
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
502K