Should South Korea Retaliate?

[_honorentheos]

I know it is a stretch to tie this to Mormon Discussions, but I am curious how people here feel about the current situation with South Korea and North Korea? LDS generally seem to have favored a "just war" philosophy though I question if this remains the case. If so, does this qualify as a just cause for war? Should the potential costs require a more diplomatic response? Or is ignoring North Korea's aggression getting too close to the Munich Pact?

Since most here are LDS, former LDS, or familiar I wondered if there was a general consensus view on what is appropriate in this circumstance?

[_zeezrom]

Hopefully China will support peace in this situation with some diplomatic actions against North K.

[_Sethbag]

North Korea seems to have realized that they have South Korea bent over and lubed up, and are going to try to get just as much out of this as they can. They realize that the "normal" responses one might expect, ie: to be shelled back, for instance, aren't really viable for South Korea. South Korea is really the only country of the two which stands to lose anything in a larger shooting war. Plus the US and China stand to lose a lot if this situation goes to a larger shooting war, and China and the US need each other too badly to be willing to suffer those consequences.

North Korean leaders don't really give a crap about their own people, so they've really got nothing to lose. Not only that, but their economy isn't just in the toilet, their economy has already been chewed up and digested and crap out again by the bacteria that inhabit the bottom of the toilet. It's only downhill from here for North Korea, but they can delusionally imagine some great action that will shake things up and change the way things are headed, and such an action might come in their delusions in the form of a great, patriotic war with the South. They are certainly armed to the teeth, and putting what food, fuel, and manpower resources as they still have into sitting there on the border with the South waiting to be used - and maybe they've figured out that it really was a great big waste of time and resources unless they're actually used.

I don't really see the way out of this. South Korea pretty much just has to sit tight and let it blow over, just like they had to do when the North sank their frigate and killed 46 sailors a year ago. Seoul, South Korea is actually within range of overwhelmingly devastating artillery and missile power that the North has. The South has too much to lose to let this escalate, and yet the North seems intent, as seen first by the outrageous sinking of the Cheonan, and now this shelling of a South Korean town and its civilian population, in just such an escalation.

[_harmony]

If so, does this qualify as a just cause for war? Should the potential costs require a more diplomatic response? Or is ignoring North Korea's aggression getting too close to the Munich Pact?

Modern warfare removes the decision-makers from the blood on the field of battle. They make decisions based on factors that do not include personal risk. We no longer have leaders who are heros, because our leaders are all cowards who sit behind desks. Thus war is too easy to start. The only factor that seems to matter is how much it costs, and even then no one cares how much it costs the individual or their families in human terms; the only criteria is dollars.

[_honorentheos]

Sethbag,

I think that is a good assessment of the situation for the most part. It has been pointed out that when Kim Jong Il first assumed control of the country in the 80's he was responsible for a similar level of violent actions against the South.

While reading about it yesterday I found it interesting how extensively the North relies on tension and fear to manipulate it's own population. In so many ways, the actions are interesting as both a form of manipulation of the world at large, but also of their own people as they begin to move through a regime change.

As you point out, there is a lot to lose. There are also new issues on the table, such as the development of the nuclear centrifuges as well as the severe poverty and starvation that is the reality for most North Korean citizens. The biggest question mark, in my mind, is that we don't know Kim Jong Un and if he is just taking a page from his father's book...or if he is in a much more difficult situation that could lead to more extreme actions on his part.

Like Zeez said, China will be key.

[_honorentheos]

If so, does this qualify as a just cause for war? Should the potential costs require a more diplomatic response? Or is ignoring North Korea's aggression getting too close to the Munich Pact?

Modern warfare removes the decision-makers from the blood on the field of battle. They make decisions based on factors that do not include personal risk. We no longer have leaders who are heros, because our leaders are all cowards who sit behind desks. Thus war is too easy to start. The only factor that seems to matter is how much it costs, and even then no one cares how much it costs the individual or their families in human terms; the only criteria is dollars.

Normally I agree with this Harmony. In this case, however, I think the economic factors work in the favor of the west. China has a lot to lose if the North breaks the armistice and reignites the shooting war. This creates an ally that would probably not be there otherwise.

[_Darth J]

I took a few Institute classes before my mission before determining that they were a waste of time---and I felt that way as a believer. (For those who wonder what this is, you know Seminary in the LDS Church for high school kids? Institute is LDS Seminary for college kids.)

Anyway, this one teacher on the first day of class said that we would be using the Book of Mormon to help us see if the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) was a "just" war. Somehow he never ended up addressing that question. However, years later a bretheren [sic] in Gospel Doctrine class remarked, apropos of nothing, how George Bush II was inspired to attack Iraq the second time (the war that we are still fighting even though we're pretending it's over), and I think this is representative of most Mormons: that it's a foregone conclusion that military action by a Republican administration is just. (Disclosure: I am by no means a Democrat or a liberal.)

The problem with using the Book of Mormon to decide whether a war is just is that the villains in the book are what a later generation would call cardboard cutouts. Their motives are simplistic "I will rule the world!" thinking, and it is always black and white (no pun intended) that the Lamanites are bad and the Nephites are good. The Lamanites always have this stereotypical Indian savage mentality, and the Nephites have a tellingly Yankee attitude about fighting for freedom and opposing tyranny.

The real world isn't like that. It isn't always clear what the right thing is or the right way to go about it. The Book of Mormon also says that the motives of the rank-and-file Nephites (like under Captain Moroni) was to fight for their liberty and their homes and their sacred honor and their families and their constitutional rights (whoops!). The rank-and-file Lamanites are always driven by savage bloodlust. In real life, even the bad guy foot soldiers probably believe that they are fighting for their families and their homes and their country just like the good guys believe this.

During a time of peace, Jacob allows that the Lamanites are more righteous than the Nephites because the Lamanites love their wives and children despite their loathsome dark skin. But when it's time for war, and the macuahuitls and the tapir cavalry have to come out, then it's back to one-dimensional caricatures. I don't see Yankee frontier platitudes as particularly helpful in looking at the moral question of whether specific instances of modern warfare are justified.

[_honorentheos]

But when it's time for war, and the macuahuitls and the tapir cavalry have to come out, then it's back to one-dimensional caricatures. I don't see Yankee frontier platitudes as particularly helpful in looking at the moral question of whether specific instances of modern warfare are justified.

While reading CaliforniaKids thread, I was struck by the quote shared by Ray A:

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956)

Brilliant.

As one who has paid my patriotic tithes in uniform, I question that morality can ever be rightly used as the rational to go to war. As you say, we aren't really capable as a species of keep our prejudices out. On the otherhand, questions of ethics and morality should always be the meat of discussion on why we should NOT go to war.

Anyway, I question if the idea of "Just War" is the same as "Moral War"? I would say no. War is a necessity at times, which may mean it is just. But I don't think it is ever moral.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

No.

It's better to deal with a few deaths than an all-out war. SK developers have built megacondos right up to the DMZ. The SK economy is doing very well. It's better to look at this as a criminal act rather than an act of war. It's not that the SKs could defeat the NKs. They could. No doubt. They have 12 Divisions just on the DMZ alone. They have every-single-artillery point mapped out and ready for a counterstrike. The NKs would, no doubt, be defeated in short order.

However, to have Seoul destroyed and to have the US engaged in a THIRD conflict, well, it would cause massive economic damage to the world.

It's better to just let this one go...

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Tchild]

I know it is a stretch to tie this to Mormon Discussions, but I am curious how people here feel about the current situation with South Korea and North Korea? LDS generally seem to have favored a "just war" philosophy though I question if this remains the case. If so, does this qualify as a just cause for war? Should the potential costs require a more diplomatic response? Or is ignoring North Korea's aggression getting too close to the Munich Pact?

Since most here are LDS, former LDS, or familiar I wondered if there was a general consensus view on what is appropriate in this circumstance?

I see NK as a sort of "extortionist" country, lacking real industry, access to capital and being removed from the global marketplace, its military regime is acting like an organized crime syndicate, extorting bribes and handouts on a national level from other countries.

NK is playing a game of chicken with the rest of civilized society, using the threat of economic disruption, death and violence if it is not economically placated. I do not believe that NK really intends to go to war, but that seems to be its one last bargaining chip for respect and money. Its research into nuclear weaponry will add strategically to this economic game of chicken.

My view is that one needs to understand the NK mindset and if necessary pay the bribes to avoid war and destruction.

Since the United States has shown perfect willingness to utilize a cost vs benefit analysis in going to war with other countries; Iraq and Afghanistan, it is apparent that paying bribes to NK by the developed world has a positive cost vs benefit equation that makes paying the bribes high on the benefit side for the U.S. and its trading partners.

I am against war, but wars happen, most usually not for any nationalistic jingoism, but as the financial status quo becomes unbearable for one or more countries.