NK Attack on SK: International Community Response Needed

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter g33kski11z
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the recent military actions by North Korea against South Korea, focusing on the implications for international response and the dynamics of regional security. Participants explore the motivations behind North Korea's actions, potential responses from the international community, and the broader geopolitical context, including the roles of the United States and China.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that North Korea's recent actions represent a significant escalation beyond previous provocations.
  • There is a belief among some that the international community lacks the resolve to take substantial action, suggesting that only a major military incident would prompt a stronger response.
  • Questions are raised about whether North Korea's actions are a show of force related to internal leadership changes.
  • Some participants argue that the United States should refrain from intervening, suggesting that the situation is primarily within China's sphere of influence.
  • There are differing views on whether South Korea's military exercises were justified or if they provoked North Korea's response.
  • Participants discuss the legality of military exercises in disputed waters and the implications of North Korea's warnings prior to the exercises.
  • Some express skepticism about the effectiveness of sanctions and propose that pressure on North Korea should come through China, given its economic ties to North Korea.
  • There is a suggestion that the conflict may be rooted in territorial disputes, with North Korea claiming ownership of the waters around the shelled island.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for escalation and the consequences of military responses to perceived provocations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the appropriate response to North Korea's actions, with multiple competing views on the motivations behind the attack, the role of the international community, and the implications for regional security. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the legality and justification of military exercises in disputed territories.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the situation, noting the interplay of military actions, territorial claims, and international relations. There are references to the potential for misinterpretation of actions and the historical context of the conflict between North and South Korea.

  • #91
Why does it matter? If we're talking rights here, Dear Leader Kim Jong-il is the bad boy who should have shells flying his way. You want to argue over this volley during war, when it's clear just where the wrong side of the line is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Given the recent https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3000434&postcount=29", SK has demonstrated restraint in the extreme. So:
Gokul43201 said:
So even if they are not legally at fault, it seems like the RoK is at least partly to blame for jump-starting this mess.
no I disagree,
They go about on some kind of exhibition of bravado (albeit one which they are well within their rights to do) and essentially spit on the ground near a rabid dog. DPRK reacts in a completely unreasonable manner, as rabid dogs are won't to do, by shelling an island of villagers!

Clearly an avoidable situation.
and no, not by SK anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
Newai said:
Why does it matter? If we're talking rights here, Dear Leader Kim Jong-il is the bad boy who should have shells flying his way. You want to argue over this volley during war, when it's clear just where the wrong side of the line is?

Then fly shells his way? Just don't say it's their fault when they fight back. That's stupid talk.

If you want to prod them and they shoot back that's your fault, entirely. If you want to attack them YOU bear the responsibility not North Korea.
 
  • #94
It's not clear to me if the shells fired by RoK landed in RoK territorial waters also claimed by DPRK, or if they landed in international waters near the DPRK coast, and I think that makes a difference. I've been thinking it was the latter.

Nevertheless, I just read that RoK in fact informed DPRK about the exercise in advance, so in my eyes, that absolves them of essentially all the immaturity I claimed they exhibited, with just a little room for doubt, pending clarification to the query raised in the paragraph above.
 
  • #95
zomgwtf said:
I never stated that the island that NK shot was disputed territory, the area which the SK conducted its exercise WAS though. So I find South Korea to blame in all of this.

Although North Koreas reaction was pretty extreme. Everyone is concentrated on South Korea needing to 'prove the territory is its' so why can't the North respond to attacks to defend its claim?
SK has nothing to prove regards borders. The territory belongs to the them from the armistice in the last century. SK fails to actively show sovereignty over the territory, and NK thugs will grab it, as thugs do. That's hardly bravado, given several hundred dead SK sailors this year already. Next we'd see Seoul as 'disputed' territory, and such a forecast is not hyperbole. Denying that history demonstrates further aggression as the likely outcome of shrinking back to the South would be the hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
  • #96
zomgwtf said:
Then fly shells his way? Just don't say it's their fault when they fight back. That's stupid talk.

If you want to prod them and they shoot back that's your fault, entirely. If you want to attack them YOU bear the responsibility not North Korea.
You can call it prodding. But it is a war. And given what their Dear Leader is, that's a responsibility I wouldn't lose sleep over.
 
  • #97
Gokul43201 said:
That's a poor analogy. This is more like you driving past all the ATMs in your neighborhood and deciding to use to the one in Chinatown ... while wearing this T-shirt (which, of course, you are fully within your rights to do).

RoK has a lot of water on all sides to shoot into. Are we supposed to believe that their decision to fire shells right outside the DPRK coastline was not meant to provoke a reaction?

Let's not create a false dichotomy here. There's nothing inconsistent about denouncing DPRK's barbaric response, while also scolding RoK for their immaturity.
it would only be reasonable to call it an 'immature provacation' if it wasn't an entirely normal/ordinary occurrence. Your characterization is unreasonable. Heck, us and the Russians are STILL doing that kind of thing, 20 years after the cold war ended!
 
  • #98
russ_watters said:
it would only be reasonable to call it an 'immature provacation' if it wasn't an entirely normal/ordinary occurrence. Your characterization is unreasonable. Heck, us and the Russians are STILL doing that kind of thing, 20 years after the cold war ended!
I haven't yet found an article that tells me enough about the exercise, or indicates that it was a normal occurrence. Do you have a link for me to read? The article that mh linked upthread seemed to suggest quite the opposite:
The attack on Yeonpyeong Island occurred after South Korean forces on exercises fired test shots into waters near the North Korean coast. We hope South Korea’s president is asking who came up with that idea. ​
 
  • #99
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Why does the US attack Iraq merely on the suspicion of having WMD's and enriching uranium, but doesn't attack North Korea when we know they have WMD's and we know they're enriching uranium and they're attacking our allies?
 
  • #101
leroyjenkens said:
Why does the US attack Iraq merely on the suspicion of having WMD's and enriching uranium, but doesn't attack North Korea when we know they have WMD's and we know they're enriching uranium and they're attacking our allies?
Firstly - NK would likely pound SK, particularly the Seoul area, so striking at NK would likely cause significant loss of life and injury to ally SK.

Secondly - NK is on the border with China and Russia, and both nations would be rather distressed, China moreso, if the US invaded and occupied NK.

Thirdly - the US economy couldn't handle the cost.
 
  • #102
leroyjenkens said:
Why does the US attack Iraq merely on the suspicion of having WMD's and enriching uranium, but doesn't attack North Korea when we know they have WMD's and we know they're enriching uranium and they're attacking our allies?

I think you've over-simplified the Iraq situation. This is from 1998 - 3 years before the "attack" on iraq.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

"Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would nolonger cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectorscalled UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozensof countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraqscapability to retain, create and use weapons of massdestruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuildthat capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago atthe end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroyits arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to setthis requirement. Other countries possesses weapons of massdestruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is onebig difference He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during adecadelong war. Not only against soldiers, but againstcivilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, SaudiArabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy,but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians inNorthern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I haveno doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will usethese terrible weapons again.

"

As for Korea, thus far conflicts have been contained. However, if the US troops are threatened the situation could change very quickly - let's hope cooler heads prevail.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Obama-Pays-Tribute-to-US-Troops-in-Korea-107195463.html
Let's also not forget that President Obama recently visited the area and at a minimum now has a first hand exposure/experience/knowledge of conditions on the ground.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #103
China works to ease North-South Korea tension
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11850821

On Friday, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met the North's ambassador in person, and spoke on the phone to his US and South Korean counterparts, according to a statement carried by the state-run Xinhua news agency.
. . . .
The forthcoming four-day US-South Korea naval manoeuvres were organised well ahead of this week's attack, but they have angered both North Korea and China.

Beijing has warned against any infractions into its exclusive economic zone, which extends 320km (200 miles) from China's coast.
. . . .
China makes a move.
 
  • #104
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_clash" on the part of their "dear leader" who has forced more people into graves from avoidable starvation than anyone else this century.

The problem is, for 57 years, every time baby wants some attention, he's rattled his cage, and unfortunately, the powers that be have reinforced that behavior by giving in. Unfortunately, he's so self-absorbed and so isolated, he's never learned that's not the way grown-ups conduct business. As a result, he and three generations of N. Koreans think he's a demi-god, while the rest of the world sees the emporer for what he is: a naked baby crying because his diaper is dirty.

Folks, this isn't an attack on N. Korean leadership. It's how things really are up there, only in deference to impute some measure of dignity to KJI, the world leaders call it "saber rattling" instead of "baby rattling." At least this round they've learned to say "no" to baby and aren't giving into his demands for a six-nation roundtable.

Hopefully, they'll hold out until baby learns to grow up a little.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
mugaliens said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_clash" on the part of their "dear leader" who has forced more people into graves from avoidable starvation than anyone else this century.

The problem is, for 57 years, every time baby wants some attention, he's rattled his cage, and unfortunately, the powers that be have reinforced that behavior by giving in. Unfortunately, he's so self-absorbed and so isolated, he's never learned that's not the way grown-ups conduct business. As a result, he and three generations of N. Koreans think he's a demi-god, while the rest of the world sees the emporer for what he is: a naked baby crying because his diaper is dirty.

Folks, this isn't an attack on N. Korean leadership. It's how things really are up there, only in deference to impute some measure of dignity to KJI, the world leaders call it "saber rattling" instead of "baby rattling." At least this round they've learned to say "no" to baby and aren't giving into his demands for a six-nation roundtable.

Hopefully, they'll hold out until baby learns to grow up a little.

You are doing propaganda; nonetheless, how we perceive NK leader (either saber or baby) doesn't change anything.

Saying "no" is not the best solution. Opening NK to the world is what's being desired.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #106
rootX said:
You are doing propaganda...

No. This is reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV-RliQupK0"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsrBBJTXnsU&playnext=1&list=PLB306BAACB1F0AA2E&index=4"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfXuGfCqJr0"

And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQXfMMHV8FM".

...how we perceive NK leader (either saber or baby) doesn't change anything.

Perception itself may not change anything, but change in the right direction is impossible without a correct starting point, and that will never be found without a clear perception of what's really going on with North Korea, it's leader, Kim Jong Il: "An absolute dictator, head of a personality cult beyond any other in human history." The news is so tightly controlled, most people in N. Korea are completely unaware that man has walked on the Moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSrcLC6Zz54&feature=related", this time from the BBC.

Saying "no" is not the best solution. Opening NK to the world is what's being desired.

Politics being what they are, opening up is something N. Korea will have to do itself, probably via internal revolt, as neither the "dear leader" nor his son, recently promoted from Lt or Capt to 4* General certainly aren't going to relinquish control of their lavish lifestyle aka regime anytime soon, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of their countrymen die of starvation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #107
mugaliens said:
Perception itself may not change anything, but change in the right direction is impossible without a correct starting point, and that will never be found without a clear perception of what's really going on with North Korea, it's leader, Kim Jong Il: "An absolute dictator, head of a personality cult beyond any other in human history."

Surely not... Mao? Augustus Caesar? Hirohito?
 
  • #108
Louis XIV too, holy heavens, what an ego he had!

China doesn't want to pressure NK much because if NK was to fall, China gets a huge flood of refugees and also South Korea likely takes control of the whole peninsula, and thus China gets a strong U.S. ally (with a U.S. military presence) right across their border. So their incentive is to preserve NK, plus they like it being a thorn in our side.
 
  • #109
Bump with http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_clash" .

Apparently someone up North is realizing military drills are a normal part of any sovereign country's right to defend itself, and are not an acceptable excuse for "retaliation."

"This is the way countries are supposed to act," U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "The South Korean exercise was defensive in nature. The North Koreans were notified in advance. There was no basis for a belligerent response."​

Bingo, and the North's continued attempts to gain either access to, or concessions from the negotiating table by acts of aggression i.e. behaving like a bumbling band of baboons as in the sinking of ships and shelling of islands won't be tolerated among other nations, either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #110
I give them two months before they lob more bombs over the fence.
 
  • #111
Newai said:
I give them two months before they lob more bombs over the fence.

Childish behavior of this sort can be predictable - this is Christmas week - expect something now.
 
  • #112
WhoWee said:
Childish behavior of this sort can be predictable - this is Christmas week - expect something now.

If they do, expect this to be the beginning of an active combat phase, if not outright war. The South has drawn a line with their threat of air raids, so if the North does as you suspect, it's going to spiral out of control VERY quickly.

Remember, a war on the Korean Peninsula probably looks like:

North may or may not use nuclear weapon on Seoul, or as a terror weapon in a less valuable region.

Our marines and the South DEFINITELY fight a delaying action, but it would likely be an inevitability that the North would initially overrun defenses. If the north doesn't blitz, they might as well shoot themselves in the head and get it over with.

I'm not saying what will or probably will happen, just how it would under certain circumstances.
 
  • #114
Unless Bill Richardson is there on Obama's orders - he is a moron - Blitzer as well.

I think the whole North Korea (and Iran) situation breaks down in this manner. First, Russia and China clearly enjoy the little sabre rattle dances both Iran and North Korea do to make the US look diminished. It appears both of them can be controlled.

At the same time, none of this is happening in a vacuum, I think Russia and China are watching the US political climate very closely since the 2010 elections. If the US voters march into the 2012 elections with a chant of enough (nonsense) is enough and it's time to restore the US to it's place in the world - the dances won't be as humorous.

Again, IMO, if Obama clearly draws a line in the sand and says enough is enough Russia and China will agree and pull some strings (guess he'll need to convince Russia and China he doesn't have any choice politically - they'll believe that).

However, if Obama chooses to play games with Richardson (or some actor or any other unofficial knucklehead) or not be clear (doesn't let Hillary do her job-she is capable) then expect the nonsense to increase.

Joe Biden predicted that Obama would be tested - this might be it.
 
  • #115
WhoWee said:
Unless Bill Richardson is there on Obama's orders - he is a moron - Blitzer as well.

I think the whole North Korea (and Iran) situation breaks down in this manner. First, Russia and China clearly enjoy the little sabre rattle dances both Iran and North Korea do to make the US look diminished. It appears both of them can be controlled.

At the same time, none of this is happening in a vacuum, I think Russia and China are watching the US political climate very closely since the 2010 elections. If the US voters march into the 2012 elections with a chant of enough (nonsense) is enough and it's time to restore the US to it's place in the world - the dances won't be as humorous.

Again, IMO, if Obama clearly draws a line in the sand and says enough is enough Russia and China will agree and pull some strings (guess he'll need to convince Russia and China he doesn't have any choice politically - they'll believe that).

However, if Obama chooses to play games with Richardson (or some actor or any other unofficial knucklehead) or not be clear (doesn't let Hillary do her job-she is capable) then expect the nonsense to increase.

Joe Biden predicted that Obama would be tested - this might be it.

You could be right, but I think you're about 15-25 years too early.
 

Similar threads

News Why is the US ignoring the violence in Syria while intervening in Libya?
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
23K
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
8K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
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
504K