Should South Korea Retaliate?

[_The Nehor]

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?

Current Status: Worried

LDS generally seem to have favored a "just war" philosophy though I question if this remains the case.

War is evil but there is such a thing as a necessary evil.

If so, does this qualify as a just cause for war?

For the U.S. no. For South Korea, maybe.

Should the potential costs require a more diplomatic response?

I hope a diplomatic solution can be reached. I think the only long-term solution is an internal revolution or coup in N. Korea.

Or is ignoring North Korea's aggression getting too close to the Munich Pact?

I don't think they have much in common. North Korea is a threat only to South Korea and (possibly) a few other neighbors. If they get really uppity with arming themselves for a larger conflict (almost financially impossible at this point) then China will probably step in and 'solve' the problem.

The Munich pact involved selling out allies to occupation and allowing our enemy to realign the balance of power in their favor. If the U.S. were to offer the South to the North then I could see it as equivalent to the Munich Pact. Germany was also a large-scale threat to global peace. N. Korea is a regional power with much less influence.

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?

Cut funding and aid to N. Korea to show them we won't put up with their saber-rattling BS. I hope S. Korea doesn't start fighting but the reality is there is only so far they can be pushed before they do.

[_bcspace]

I know it is a stretch to tie this to Mormon Discussions,

Well, you did put it in the off topic forum.......

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.

A war to protect the basic freedoms of others, friends, allies, or resources is always just. In the case of a tyrannical dictatorship, it is not possible to preempt war even by striking first and with suprise as such has already "empted".

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?

One line of reasoning is that NKorea benefits from continuing provocations and that we should destroy something valuble such as a military base each time it happens. The other is that the NKorean leadership, especially in this time of leadership transition, can divert attention from that with conflict and thus strengthen it's hold on the people. I think both sides are equally correct.

While it would be just and right to forcibly and violently unify the Koreas now, in terms of saving allied life and cost, it might be better to wait until NKorea collapses. In that case, we must be ready to move before China does. However, China will work to maintain the status quo as it does not want a united and free Korea on it's border. Therefore, I recommend a date set secretly within the next decade or so on which SKorea, the US, and Japan, move to take NKorea if it has not collapsed already.

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?

Not many believing LDS here. Most everyone else from jack to former tend to skew left wing; a major reason for apostasy in the Church.

[_bcspace]

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.

I think I would call their bluff this time and destroy a base or a known nuclear or rocket site. Then I would continue to sit back and wait until they collapse or until the recommended date set (as per my previous post) is reached. I would always retalliate in much stronger fashion than I was attacked.

But ultimately, the status quo is unnacceptable and we have a responsibility to liberate those people or aid in it (because we can).

[_The Nehor]

A war to protect the basic freedoms of others, friends, allies, or resources is always just.

Even if the 'free' nation were to somehow provoke the war? (not saying this applies here but you did give this as a generality)

In the case of a tyrannical dictatorship, it is not possible to preempt war even by striking first and with suprise as such has already "empted".

Mormon disagrees with you.

One line of reasoning is that NKorea benefits from continuing provocations and that we should destroy something valuble such as a military base each time it happens.

Almost certainly costing thousands of lives on both sides.

The other is that the NKorean leadership, especially in this time of leadership transition, can divert attention from that with conflict and thus strengthen it's hold on the people.

If they're winning or can convince their people they are maybe.

I think both sides are equally correct.

Disagree.

While it would be just and right to forcibly and violently unify the Koreas now, in terms of saving allied life and cost, it might be better to wait until NKorea collapses.

I disagree with the idea that it would be right to invade I do hope there is some kind of collapse.

In that case, we must be ready to move before China does.

I think a N. Korean collapse would result in Chinese occupation of the North. The U.S. could not stop them if China really wants it. Most wargame simulations of a pacific war with China result in the U.S. losing due to an inability to supply and project air power into the region (China's sub force would likely cut us off by sea and keep back our carriers).

However, China will work to maintain the status quo as it does not want a united and free Korea on it's border.

Probably not, but I think China is almost as annoyed with N. Korea as we are.

Therefore, I recommend a date set secretly within the next decade or so on which SKorea, the US, and Japan, move to take NKorea if it has not collapsed already.

That would be a catastrophe. We would almost certainly lose and casualties would be in the millions. S. Korea would never go for it due to the damage their nation would sustain and China would almost certainly intervene and they would have shorter supply lines, larger armies, and land-based air support. We might be able to win with the nuclear option but I don't see ICBM hits on multiple cities as an acceptable risk.

I'm also confused. How do you think Japan could step in and help? They are still under WWII disarmament treaties and there is no way in hell that Japanese leaders would be stupid enough to let us base our forces in Japan for a strike on N. Korea because they know the Chinese response would not end well for them.

[_Jersey Girl]

It's sad that North Korea can get away will killing South Koreans and they are absolutely no reprecussions. If war breaks out, China is not going to back North Korea against a U.S.-allied South Korea. Let's finish taking down the pathetic dictators of the world and liberate the North Korean citizens. South Korea and the United States has every excuse to do so.

South Korea and the US has every excuse to do so...with what exactly?

What is it that you're proposing, Presbyter? That the US and SK go to war with NK?

Again, with what?