More war ?

[JakeStarkey]

Fact: 28K American troops are on the DMZ with the mission of killing NKs until the last American is dead.

Yes, well, that's the thing. I question the value to our current national interest of some of these antique Cold War treaties. This one, specifying "tripwire" troops there to die to make us mad enough to go to war for South Korea seems to me particularly heartless and pointless in 2013. Outdated defense treaties with Israel and Formosa/Taiwan are two more.

Does anyone have a fix on what our actual national interest defending South Korea is? Given the likelihood of combat sooner or later and possible obliteration of so many of our soldiers. I simply can't see what we get out of it.

I explained this earlier above. The tripwire is to make NK think twice before invading. ROK is the lynch pin of NE Asia commercially and militarily.

Yeah, we do have to be there, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

[Circe]

I explained this earlier above. The tripwire is to make NK think twice before invading. ROK is the lynch pin of NE Asia commercially and militarily.

Yeah, we do have to be there, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq.

Thanx, and sorry, I posted this before I read your claim that South Korea is central to Asian prosperity and commerce. Well, that's a good point. The quintessential "Asian Tiger."

I suppose our base there positions us well for future .....interactions..... with China.

And I suppose there is always the last gasp of "Pax Americana."

I don't like the "tripwire troops" concept at all, however. It's very early Cold War.

Of all the unstable territorial situations in the world, this has to be the most unstable. Like East Germany, North Korea is just getting further and further behind the real world and hungrier and hungrier. How can this really go on much longer? At some point it will go KABOOM! like the reunification of East and West Germany and in three days things will be very, very different.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree it is early cold war thinking, but as long as that particular group of leaderships survives and thrives in NK, I don't think we can do anything else. I am not sure the EG example is germane, because as bad as the regime was, the leadership was not as out of touch as that of NK.

I agree that this is not a happy situation.

 

[Circe]

I am not sure the EG example is germane, because as bad as the regime was, the leadership was not as out of touch as that of NK.

No, but it's the same sort of instability: one part of a divided nation getting more and more behind and yearning to catch up. When it goes, it goes extremely fast: I recall the East Germans literally ran for country bridges when they realized the guards were no longer shooting and crowded over them, running for the West; and the Berlin Wall went down under hammers wielded by individuals.

The same sort of instability of a held-back nation suddenly exploding happened with the very sudden breakup of the Soviet Union in December 1991. The USSR was WAY behind everyone else in Europe and America by then, desperately trying to throw all its resources into power parity ----- that's a lot like what North Korea is doing, throwing everything into nukes and war preparedness in order to keep some sort of power that will be respected.

It can't possibly last. Can we imagine this same situation in 2083? No. 2153? No. It's bound to blow up, and I suppose we have to be there so it doesn't end up with that Kim crime family taking the whole penninsula and continuing the instability on a larger scale.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Other than mistaking the comparison as one of degree rather than of kind, I agree with your conclusion.

The USA is there until the NK regime implodes, bringing disaster on the peninsula and perhaps further.

 

[Circe]

The USA is there until the NK regime implodes, bringing disaster on the peninsula and perhaps further.

And after that disaster we'll still be there, if we don't lose the war and get expelled yet, yet again. Because our base in South Korea is a useful foothold close to the Chinese mainland, a power projection base for a competition that pretty much everyone supposes is going to be of interest sooner or later.

I expect China would be glad to see us gone in the aftermath of the Korean disaster, however.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perhaps but maybe not since it holds so much of our debt.

 

[Flopper]

Fact: 28K American troops are on the DMZ with the mission of killing NKs until the last American is dead.

Yes, well, that's the thing. I question the value to our current national interest of some of these antique Cold War treaties. This one, specifying "tripwire" troops there to die to make us mad enough to go to war for South Korea seems to me particularly heartless and pointless in 2013. Outdated defense treaties with Israel and Formosa/Taiwan are two more.

Does anyone have a fix on what our actual national interest defending South Korea is? Given the likelihood of combat sooner or later and possible obliteration of so many of our soldiers. I simply can't see what we get out of it.

We certain have strong interest in defending South Korea. They are our 6th largest trading partners with large US investments in their country. US markets tumble every time there is mention of a financial collapse in Greece. That would be nothing compared to the fall of South Korea.

North Korea has said it will attack the US and are building and testing nuclear weapons and missiles as fast as they can. To allow 700,000 North Koreans to overrun South Korea would be a huge mistake. Aside from our promise to defend South Korea, a stronger anti-American communist nuclear power in southeast Asia would be a threat to Japan, the Philippines, all Indonesia, as well as the US.

 

[Circe]

Perhaps but maybe not since it holds so much of our debt.

Yes, well, I didn't mean gone entirely, just off the mainland.