Evacuate Seoul and Tokyo as part of War Games

Maybey, just maybey people will start thinking for themselves.
I'm not suggesting everybody will, but some will think and act for themselves.
You know. Some people are capable of doing so.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: delbertlarson


The Seoul metropolitan area is roughly 200 square miles from my estimate looking at the map. South Korea's area is 38,000 square miles, 190 times larger. Admittedly, some of the terrain may not be useable, but much of the hostage situation results from the artillery being aimed at Seoul. So it might be possible to not only disperse the population, but get it out of the range of a lot of what presently threatens it. We evacuate in the face of hurricanes all the time. In the case of Seoul, you don't need to do it quickly either, it could be orderly. It does of course take the will to do so.

So when they take weeks to evacuate and run like ants from a magnifying glass, how long of a 'period' do they stay away from all that they know? 2 weeks? 6 months? When they return after the supposed threat is over, how long do they stay? DO they run back and fourth every other month?

The idea is ridiculous. If a threat is so great that it affects a whole civilization of 25,000,000+, they have two options. Evacuate the area permanently or eliminate the threat to the best of their ability.

Some things many humans think are worth dying for, is their country and the rights and lives of it's citizens.

a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

1. You need to chill the eff out. I don't know you & I don't particularly value your opinion. So you can keep your bs bravado to yourself.

2. I know when the Korean War was fought. I also know that many things have happened since then, included several decades of reconciliation & cooperation between the 2 Koreas.

3. If we're going to strictly focus on what happened during that time period, we'd still be on hostile terms with Vietnam and Cambodia as well. Instead, we're on great terms with both of them because times change & new policies of reconciliation can do wonders for relations between previously warring countries. Or have you forgotten that we actually nuked Japan, yet now they're a huge ally too?

4. The main people who seem fascinated with a new Korean War are the MIC because of weapons deals and the keyboard warriors who won't actually be dying in that conflict. If you want to go fight and die for this crap, then be my guest. But don't drag the rest of us into it when there are literally decades worth of negotiations, trade deals, and reconciliation efforts that prove that war isn't the only option.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
They even had strong cooperation between the 1970s and 1990s, with their mutually stated goals being the reunion of the Koreas. I have no clue why people are so quick to ignore reconciliation in favor of new fantasies of war.

Respectfully a pipe dream.

North Korea sees a unified Korea under Pyongyang and Seoul sees a unified Korea under Seoul. People in the South arent going to give up Democracy to live under the North's regime and the regime in the North isnt going to give up their power, especially considering they are revered as and portrayed as Gods to the North Korean people.

While a peaceful resolution is by far preferable I just dont see it happening given the current set of issues in play.

Lil kimmy already has 3 children now and they will be groomed to take over for dad when he dies.

a reply to: delbertlarson

So the S Koreans keep moving around, whilst N Korea ignore any movements? Seriously?

The thread's premise is not sound

a reply to: Xcathdra
Would it be out of the question to do the Roman thing and end his bloodline?? Accidents can happen .... thats why the CIA exists.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

1. You need to chill the eff out. I don't know you & I don't particularly value your opinion. So you can keep your bs bravado to yourself.

2. I know when the Korean War was fought. I also know that many things have happened since then, included several decades of reconciliation & cooperation between the 2 Koreas.

3. If we're going to strictly focus on what happened during that time period, we'd still be on hostile terms with Vietnam and Cambodia as well. Instead, we're on great terms with both of them because times change & new policies of reconciliation can do wonders for relations between previously warring countries. Or have you forgotten that we actually nuked Japan, yet now they're a huge ally too?

4. The main people who seem fascinated with a new Korean War are the MIC because of weapons deals and the keyboard warriors who won't actually be dying in that conflict. If you want to go fight and die for this crap, then be my guest. But don't drag the rest of us into it when there are literally decades worth of negotiations, trade deals, and reconciliation efforts that prove that war isn't the only option.

1) Some folks should keep their "holier than thou" attitude silent . It doesnt become them at all.
2) When did that happen ? The world go through a Mandela Effect ?
3) Yes , the US nuked Japan , destroyed Germany and Italy , laid waste to Vietnam and Cambodia , and for the most part they are "friends" not "allies" . Whats your point ?
4) This one is so inane , I really dont know where to begin....

a reply to: Gothmog

1) Some folks should keep their "holier than thou" attitude silent . It doesnt become them at all.

Oh shut up. When some stranger talks about grabbing me by my collar, I conclude that they can go screw themself. Ironically, you're the one sounded :holier than thou" by acting like a white knight for them.

2) When did that happen ? The world go through a Mandela Effect ?

Maybe you should actually read up on Korean diplomatic relations from the 1960s through 2002. Oh what am I thinking you won't research anything. If you actually wanted to know this stuff, you would've already done that research to find out for yourself. I even posted the simplest and most blatant example of this which is called "the Sunshine Policy".

3) Yes , the US nuked Japan , destroyed Germany and Italy , laid waste to Vietnam and Cambodia , and for the most part they are "friends" not "allies" . Whats your point ?

LOL Do you even read what you're responding to? My point was literally in the same paragraph that you replied to. It's even in bold. (facepalm)

4) This one is so inane , I really dont know where to begin....

(yawn)

Provided the peninsula doesn't go up in flames, atomic or otherwise, re-unification is inevitable.

Many, if not most, of the people living in the North, along with many, if not most, in the South want it. The only thing preventing it is the intransigence of the Kim regime.

Un is going to push it too far, and his own people around him may decide to do something about it. Either the Army or the two competing "wings" of the govt, the Organization and Guidance Dept (OGD) and the Administration Dept.--Kim Un could be, for all we really know, a puppet of either one of these--and his removal would change little or nothing.

There is a man, at the moment, who bears watching in North Korean politics and policy decisions... His name is Hwang Byong-so, he is Deputy Director of the OGD, and may be the de facto number two guy in North Korea--possibly even co-number one. At the very least, Kim Un isn't as Supreme a supreme leader as perhaps we've been lead to believe.

The OGD.

There are four groups that could, and likely will, play a roll in the future of North Korea--for good, or for ill, remains to be seen... This is, of course, my opinion, and should be treated as such.

The OGD, lead by Hwang Byong-so.

The Administration Dept. of the Koreans Workers Party, lead by Jang Song Taek, though how much power he actually holds is debatable...a lot of the Parties power seems to have been usurped by the OGD in past years, since the death of Un's father and grand-father.

The Army, lead by General Ri Yong-gil (Peoples Armed Forces minister), and his deputy Vice Marshal Ri Myong-su (chief of the General Staff).

The Internal Security Apparatus (three organizations): The Border Guard, a para-military organization that works from within the Ministry of Peoples Security. The State Security Dept (read Secret Police), that answers, supposedly, only to Kim Jung-Un. ...and finally, but hardly least, the Ministry of Peoples Security, responsible for normal police duties, monitoring political opinion, etc... Together these three groups wield an impressive amount of influence.

Whether they will/would "remove" Un remains to be seen. They may approve of maintaining the status quo as it currently exists...thus maintaining their grip on power. Reunification with the south would, in all likelihood, see that power end, or be drastically curtailed.

What's going to happen in the future is anyone's guess, but there will be many powerful voices aside from Kims that will be heard, and it would behoove us to not forget that.

a reply to: seagull

I've long wondered how complete reunification would work. From my limited research, the North mainly seems to want money, unrestricted trade, food guarantees, safety guarantees, and complete control over society. Trade, money, food, and safety guarantees seem easy enough, but I have no idea how their leadership would be allowed to maintain power if reunited with the more populous and richer South.

Let's say that reunification involved the creation of a single Korean nation. Would the communist party initially be set up as the dominant/ruling party in the northern states while the current South Korean political parties shared the southern states? If so, what would happen in the first national elections? I could imagine a system where those 3 parties all ran against each other, but I have no idea how that would play out.

I'd also imagine that the northern states would immediately experience culture shock when their citizens are finally allowed to see the rest of the world as it really is. But I doubt the communist party would allow that because it would prove that their propaganda was a layer of lies, which would likely cause their people to reject them. On the other hand, there's always the possibility that the citizens in the southern states would learn that the bogeyman in the north was greatly exaggerated, which could cause similar disillusionment.

As of now, I think the best case scenario would involve the southern parties administering the entire country, the northern administration sharing many of the law enforcement & military duties, and a dual amnesty program for the north's leadership & any southerners who were wanted for crimes against the north. In theory, this would end most of the food insecurity, would jump start the north's economy, and would open the north up to all of the pros & cons of modern life (while allowing families to unite and businesses to gain both new customers and a new workforce). It would also allow the soldiers and law enforcement in the north to keep their jobs by helping protect all of Korea, while allowing the north's powerbrokers to save face while releasing the reins of power.

If the 2003 Iraq War taught us anything, it should be that immediately disbanding the main political party and the military in a conquered country is a huge mistake. A lot of people would probably be left unsatisfied by this approach in the short term, but I think it would pay extreme dividends in the decades that followed. Then again, I have my doubts that China wants a united Korea at its doorstep & I'd imagine Japan also would be against it because they'd probably be public enemy #1 for a united Korea.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

1. You need to chill the eff out. I don't know you & I don't particularly value your opinion. So you can keep your bs bravado to yourself.

You appear not to value facts and the reason you don't value what other people say is because the truth will pop the bubble of bullsht you've created around yourself.

2. I know when the Korean War was fought. I also know that many things have happened since then, included several decades of reconciliation & cooperation between the 2 Koreas.

If that's the case then it's quite apparent that you are ignoring what you know and becoming upset with others when they point it out. There was never a reconciliation, there was what is known as a 'basic agreement' and even that was tenuous at best.

3. If we're going to strictly focus on what happened during that time period, we'd still be on hostile terms with Vietnam and Cambodia as well. Instead, we're on great terms with both of them because times change & new policies of reconciliation can do wonders for relations between previously warring countries. Or have you forgotten that we actually nuked Japan, yet now they're a huge ally too?

You've shown yourself incapable of focusing on anything other than bizarre fantasies you've conjured up in your mind, shirking basic and fundamental facts of the matter. Let's not even start on how you think someone is going to cause the two Koreas to magically reconcile. Also, Japan and the USA and most of the world are on extremely good diplomatic terms. Again, this is the sort of basic point you are happy to ignore in order to maintain your fantasy - while accusing others who point of facts and truth of living in one.

4. The main people who seem fascinated with a new Korean War are the MIC because of weapons deals and the keyboard warriors who won't actually be dying in that conflict. If you want to go fight and die for this crap, then be my guest. But don't drag the rest of us into it when there are literally decades worth of negotiations, trade deals, and reconciliation efforts that prove that war isn't the only option.

Now you seem not to be addressing me, but a bunch of other people. So I'm unclear who you are truly directing your comments in this case toward. I do however agree with your sentiment. What you have is a lay and very basic understanding and opinion of an extraordinarily complex situation which, as it turns out you do actually know, has spanned seven decades.

It's possible to conceive that the somewhat positive relations established during the Nordpolitik era could have continued and improved, but Kim Jong-il died and his heir had to prove himself in order not to be deposed - or so he would have been forced to assume.

Of course arms dealers and rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of a war, but it's the fat little psychopath piggy Kim Jong-un who is behind it. You can take it, or leave it. You can ignore what I've said because you don't like me - I don't particularly like you, either. But that isn't a clever way to improve your knowledge here or anywhere.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: seagull

I've long wondered how complete reunification would work. From my limited research, the North mainly seems to want money, unrestricted trade, food guarantees, safety guarantees, and complete control over society. Trade, money, food, and safety guarantees seem easy enough, but I have no idea how their leadership would be allowed to maintain power if reunited with the more populous and richer South.

That's why, so long as the current "leadership" is in place there, reunification is, flatly, impossible. As you say, the tangible products of food, money, trade, and safety are easily enough done. The rest of it is so unlikely as to register zero.

Let's say that reunification involved the creation of a single Korean nation. Would the communist party initially be set up as the dominant/ruling party in the northern states while the current South Korean political parties shared the southern states? If so, what would happen in the first national elections? I could imagine a system where those 3 parties all ran against each other, but I have no idea how that would play out.

I think that that is almost the only way it would, or could, work. The workers party/communist party is all but the very oldest have ever known--and before that it was a Japanese occupation/colonial state. Save for the very shortest period of Allied presence after WWII.

I'd also imagine that the northern states would immediately experience culture shock when their citizens are finally allowed to see the rest of the world as it really is. But I doubt the communist party would allow that because it would prove that their propaganda was a layer of lies, which would likely cause their people to reject them. On the other hand, there's always the possibility that the citizens in the southern states would learn that the bogeyman in the north was greatly exaggerated, which could cause similar disillusionment.

Culture shock is about right. Though I think they'd get over it soon enough. They do, afterall, know about most of it, they just don't have access to it. I can't see the communist party surviving for long, unless it's completely remade, at which time it's not the communist party anymore...

As of now, I think the best case scenario would involve the southern parties administering the entire country, the northern administration sharing many of the law enforcement & military duties, and a dual amnesty program for the north's leadership & any southerners who were wanted for crimes against the north. In theory, this would end most of the food insecurity, would jump start the north's economy, and would open the north up to all of the pros & cons of modern life (while allowing families to unite and businesses to gain both new customers and a new workforce). It would also allow the soldiers and law enforcement in the north to keep their jobs by helping protect all of Korea, while allowing the north's powerbrokers to save face while releasing the reins of power.

We're in agreement here.

If the 2003 Iraq War taught us anything, it should be that immediately disbanding the main political party and the military in a conquered country is a huge mistake. A lot of people would probably be left unsatisfied by this approach in the short term, but I think it would pay extreme dividends in the decades that followed. Then again, I have my doubts that China wants a united Korea at its doorstep & I'd imagine Japan also would be against it because they'd probably be public enemy #1 for a united Korea.

Well, unless China wants another war on the peninsula...and they'd do well to remember how the last one turned out for them.

There's history there with Japan, Korea, and China. Long and usually bloody. At some point or other, each has attempted to conquer the other. So, yeah, old issues will come to the surface...just as when Germany reunified. A lot of people in many countries were scared to death of a reunified Germany. Nothing has happened, nor does it show any signs of happening.

South Korea and Japan are not what one would call friends, they are, at best, allies of convenience. Certainly won't see that change any time soon. Though, it's been closer to a century than not since the bad ol' days of Japanese occupation of Korea. Different times may, only may, lead to different thoughts.

a reply to: seagull

That's why, so long as the current "leadership" is in place there, reunification is, flatly, impossible. As you say, the tangible products of food, money, trade, and safety are easily enough done. The rest of it is so unlikely as to register zero.

I might need to do more research on their previous reconciliation plans because they had to have a solution to this part. Maybe some special counsel for the current communist leaders, like letting them head the social programs? Because like you noted earlier, there's way more to their leadership than just Kim Jong-un. And it doesn't seem like the other groups will just dissipate over time since they're seemingly replenishing their ranks with new "talent". It's quite the dilemma for true peacemakers, assuming they're really as strict & power hungry as I'm led to believe they are.

I think that that is almost the only way it would, or could, work. The workers party/communist party is all but the very oldest have ever known--and before that it was a Japanese occupation/colonial state. Save for the very shortest period of Allied presence after WWII.

Culture shock is about right. Though I think they'd get over it soon enough. They do, afterall, know about most of it, they just don't have access to it. I can't see the communist party surviving for long, unless it's completely remade, at which time it's not the communist party anymore...

I think this part would be the most unpredictable part. We assume that the citizens in the North would be the ones who change the most. But what if it's the opposite? There's always the chance that many of the South Korean poor/lower class would actually gravitate to communism if the promises of wealth distribution were sincere. The same goes for any South Korean youths who are struggling to make a living in the high cost modern society & anyone disenfranchised by their current political structure. The North may even market some of their norms to citizens in the South as "the traditional Korean ways that you lost to Westernization". Never underestimate the powers of propaganda and nostalgia.

I also firmly expect the current North Korean leadership to adapt to their new reality similarly to the way China started adopting some capitalist measures after Mao died. Even though they technically stayed communist, Chairman Deng (Mao's successor) completely upgraded China's financial policies. Based on my limited research, it seems like this is what got China to follow its current path as the world's manufacturing base. So there's always the chance that the North's leaders would adopt a similar hybrid plan in order to maintain power.

I can't lie, the deal maker in me is so curious on how a potential reunification would go. There are so many possibilities that are way juicier than war.

Well, unless China wants another war on the peninsula...and they'd do well to remember how the last one turned out for them.

I mainly think they wouldn't want a unified Korea on their doorstep if it's a staunch US ally. I'd imagine that they would look at that similarly to how we looked at Cuba during the Cold War. And that's especially true as long as anti-Chinese sentiments are being promoted by our politicians.

There's history there with Japan, Korea, and China. Long and usually bloody. At some point or other, each has attempted to conquer the other. So, yeah, old issues will come to the surface...just as when Germany reunified. A lot of people in many countries were scared to death of a reunified Germany. Nothing has happened, nor does it show any signs of happening.

True. But some of that may be because we kept military bases in Germany. You know, just in case. It's similar to how we kept military bases in Japan after WW2 & military bases in Gulf countries after the Arab oil embargo. (Ok, that's not completely true. We keep bases in those places for more reasons than that. But I do think that one of the side reasons we keep bases in those countries is to be a deterrent to any extreme ambitions by their politicians.)

South Korea and Japan are not what one would call friends, they are, at best, allies of convenience. Certainly won't see that change any time soon. Though, it's been closer to a century than not since the bad ol' days of Japanese occupation of Korea. Different times may, only may, lead to different thoughts.

True & I hope you're right. But I won't give the benefit of the doubt to the current politicians in either North Korea, South Korea, or Japan. North Korea's leadership has routinely provoked Japan, so I'd imagine the Japanese leaders would want some type of justice for the missile launches & threats. But if any reunification plan included an amnesty plan, then the unified Korean leaders would probably ignore Japan's requests for extradition.

And at the same time, Japan's leaders routinely irk Koreans with their visits to that WW2 shrine (I can't remember the name) & their refusal to admit the full scope of the sex slavery of Korean women during the occupation. Right now, those issue can be overcome because there's a larger common "enemy" (North Korea). But I'm fully expecting the North's media figures to use Japan as a rallying cry/bogeyman to make the political transition go smoother. Kind of like "Yeah, we were rivals but we're finally reunited! We have the same history, language, and families; unlike those Japanese who did A, B, and C! So let's stop our bickering so we can unite against a common aggressor". (I'll never underestimate their propaganda)

Originally I thought they'd try this against the US in a reunification bid, but I doubt the South Korean media & chaebols would go along with that. And uniting against China seems suicidal since China is currently the largest trade partner for both Koreas.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Your plan, beyond being almost logistically impossible, would dramatically increase the chance of war on the Peninsula. The North Koreans would read such a move as a build up to a preemptive strike and would likely go first. Not only that but the South Korean government, being liberal and weak, would never agree.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I mainly think they wouldn't want a unified Korea on their doorstep if it's a staunch US ally. I'd imagine that they would look at that similarly to how we looked at Cuba during the Cold War. And that's especially true as long as anti-Chinese sentiments are being promoted by our politicians.

This is the wild card in every single scenario that concerns the Korea's.

China. How will China react? A staunch U.S. ally isn't anything China wants, or would look at with anything less than horror. Personally, I don't think Japan would necessarily like it, either...

My own thoughts lead me to this conclusion--take it for what it's likely worth... I think Korea, after reunification would be likely to draw away from the U.S., at least somewhat, and explore closer ties with China--economically, at the very least. It's a monstrous market just waiting to be exploited, with China able to provide raw materials a short train ride away... Along with ready access to rare earths that North Korea has, apparently, in abundance? They'd be able to chart their own path, with much less reliance on the U.S.

I don't see any sort of alliance, there's simply too much nasty history between Japan, Korea, and China--going all three ways. But I can see, rather easily, a loose knit economic alliance of sorts...a rather powerful one, at that. That whole Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere thing...only three legs, rather than one.

It's all contingent, of course, on any sort of reunification being possible any time soon. I'd give it, at best, a 4 in 10 chance.

a reply to: seagull

China will likely invade North Korea once the regime has fallen or its C3 has been taken out and set up a buffer zone. "North Korea" the buffer state would likely continue to exist their perpetually to keep U.S. forces away from the Yalu River.

a reply to: NuclearDamocles

No, they won't. They're not about to force a war with the South Koreans and the US, especially since there's no guarantee they'd win.

Not a chance. Much easier to have friendly relations, or at least cordial. Cordial relations leave room for all sorts of good things to happen. South Korea is an economic giant, China has resources that South Korea, or a unified Korea could make use of. Both sides profit.

Invasion? China loses, no matter the results of the war.

a reply to: seagull

Fat North Korean piggy knows full well that what is guaranteed is his own demise if he goes too far and he also knows that he is walking a fine line between calling bluff and military action against him and his country.

And not one of those stoned idiots around him dare even try to take him down. I mean just put a bullet in his head, what a bunch of weak mongrels. As always I really feel sorry for the North Korean people, they're the ones who are suffering and will continue to till this nonsense is over.

a reply to: seagull

If the North Koreans are faced with nothing but bad options they will choose the least bad option. Their operational nuclear forces seem to have a first strike policy and given the geopolitical realities on the ground it would be foolish for them not too. If Chairman Kim thinks that war is near he will strike first because otherwise he will lose all his weapons and still perish.

The idea to, "take as many of them with you as you can" applies here.

a reply to: NuclearDamocles

I suspect that you may be right, though if, and it's a big, honkin' if, my reading of the political landscape is even remotely accurate, there may be something resembling checks and balances in place.

The Party isn't, by some accounts, nearly the monolithic power it once was. Still powerful, but there are, at least, two other power brokerages in play that can, to an extent, counteract Un.

The OGD, which was a rubberstamp organization, under Un's father, may not be that with Un. There seems that there could possibly be opposition building...maybe.

...and the military, along with the Internal Security branches, could also decide to take a roll here.

All this is, of course, sheer conjecture on my part...but I'm seein' something, just not quite sure what just yet.

But what is obvious to me is that any aggressive acts from without will do nothing but drive these factions together out of survival necessity.

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
a reply to: seagull

Fat North Korean piggy knows full well that what is guaranteed is his own demise if he goes too far and he also knows that he is walking a fine line between calling bluff and military action against him and his country.

Yes, he is. Which should tell you that he may not be as "in control" of the country as propaganda makes him out to be. This brinksmanship game that he is playing is, maybe, to placate hardliners, while keeping the lesser hard line inclined from making a move against him. Maybe. If that's the case, the more aggressive the outside influences, the more likely it is that he'll react...badly to it. To save face, as it were, before his "loyal" opposition.

And not one of those stoned idiots around him dare even try to take him down. I mean just put a bullet in his head, what a bunch of weak mongrels. As always I really feel sorry for the North Korean people, they're the ones who are suffering and will continue to till this nonsense is over.

"stoned idiots" seldom, if ever, rise to the level of power these guys have. Or survive a murderous sociopath in the form of Un's father. Nor are they "weak mongrels". Treating them as such could lead to a surprise not at all pleasant to receive. As usually happens when one believes the hyperbole and doesn't bother to look at what actually may be happening.

It really is a good thing that the people handling this aren't of your mind, as I've no desire to see mushrooms sprouting.