The case for preemptive war: The United States should be willing to aid South Korea in going North

[BrentWil]

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Iraq was a dumb war fought for dumb rational. It was extremely wasteful and we have no guarantee that the new Iraqi State will be more beneficial to the United States then Saddam's Iraq. Iraq could take many paths in the future. Many of those paths are not helpful for the United States.

That said, Iraq is a sunk cost and should not determine future decision making. This is especially true of decision making that has no relationship with Iraq. In the case of North Korea, we have an agent that is a destabilizing agent that we can not continue to buy off with food and money. Moreover, unlike Iraq, there is a clear state (South Korea), that could administrative a post war state and integrate the North into a democratic united Korea.

The cost of North Korea starting a war are extreme. Millions of people live within the artillery range of North Korea. This could be mitigated if South Korea (and the United States) struck first. Moreover, there are cost to continued existence of North Korea. They have demonstrated a willingness to export missile and WMD technology. The cost of the North Korea state is not only in millions of aid to provide ransom for their consent threats, but to the North Korean people. The North Korean people deserve a government who follows policies that do not produce starvation and an existence that is barely survivable. Political integration of Korea into a democratic state that represents all of Korea is possible and would be a huge benefit to the North Korean people.

China and Russia are growing tired of the game North Korea is playing. Ensuring that they remain neutral in a military conflict which South Korea (and us) start is essential. However, if that condition is achieved, we shouldn't exclude the idea of South Korea going north, with our aid. A united Korea would require economic and humanitarian aid. However, in the long run, South Korea is a society that is fully capable of integrating the North. That would be good for us, South Korea, the Region, and (most importantly) the North Korean people.

[ProSense]

1. Going to war really excites you doesn't it? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

29. Come on now, that isn't fair. nt

[ProSense]

33. Yes it is.

I've had plenty of discussions with the poster, who was previously pushing war with Iran in several posts.

Why isn't it "fair" to point out that someone wants to see war, especially given the OP?

[ZombieHorde]

43. You're saying the OP is excited by the prospect of war, when their OP

specifically addresses concern for the people of SK. As far as we know, the OP has nothing to gain by a war with SK, and simply has a different world view than we do.

Saying President Obama is excited by war isn't fair either, even though the war in Afghanistan is still going strong, and his military support for the conflict in Libya.

[ProSense]

57. Yes,

"You're saying the OP is excited by the prospect of war, when their OP specifically addresses concern for the people of SK. As far as we know, the OP has nothing to gain by a war with SK, and simply has a different world view than we do.

Saying President Obama is excited by war isn't fair either, even though the war in Afghanistan is still going strong, and his military support for the conflict in Libya."

...making the "case for preemptive war" is being excited by war. It reminds me of Bush and Rumsfeld, they too were exicted by war. President Obama rejects preemptive wars.

[quinnox]

40. prosense is right on the money on this one

[ZombieHorde]

44. I disagree for reasons stated in my reply to Prosense. nt

[Jamastiene]

68. And there is always this too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1919195

[freshwest]

79. Well, that was old news, but he's on a roll today, huh? Where's that Ignore button...

[BrentWil]

81. It was a thread I self deleted...

And a subject that is still interesting.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I think it would violate UN terms, and would be seen as aggression.

Unfortunately, we have to brace for a first strike unless they're literally about to launch something scary that we can see.

[BrentWil]

25. THey have already attacked since the cease fire..

multiple times. Some high level ones very recently.

[TwilightGardener]

67. Right, but...the US isn't going to be the aggressor. It would be pretty crazy, and violate

the terms of our treaty. I don't believe pre-emption is ever a good thing, unless we're truly talking about imminent WMD deployment or launch.

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. N Korea threat is way overblown

The greatest threat they are is to build and sell nukes to people who will use them.

Here or elsewhere.

For that, a SEAL team expedition or two would probably suffice.

[BrentWil]

5. Yes

But that is a real threat. The North Korea itself would collapse

[GP6971]

13. Sure it would

But can the ROK pick up the economic pieces of doing so? Highly doubtful

[BrentWil]

26. The ROK has twice the population and a much larger GDP

[link:?uuid=V0aEdipVEeGDKURg8pC4_A|

[davidpdx]

86. No, even though South Korea has a pretty good economy

A flood of refugees would cause havoc. I can tell you most South Koreans would be opposed to it.

[BrentWil]

90. Yes, it would be a problem..

But that is a problem with an reasonable easy solution.

1. Humanitarian aid from the World
2. Hey, N. Korea farmers. Its land reform time. You actually own the land and the government won't take everything your produce.

Most of the population lives in the country side. There are relativity easy things you could do (if you had political control over the area) to quickly enhance their life.

[2ndAmForComputers]

17. Dude, seriously. Really.

How well do you think such a move would go? I mean, preemptive war on the North by the South, backed by us? Do you think China would play nice?

Have you no idea how many varieties of backlash that would ensue?

[BrentWil]

27. China would be in a difficult spot, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility that they would

stay neutral and allow N. Korea to go away. N. Korea is a problem for them also.

[cali]

4. Jaysus Fucking Keerist. Of all the stupid shit posted about N.K. this op

takes the yellow cake.

And it infuriates me no end.

It's disgusting. Reprehensible. Nonsensical and makes me sorry that I don't have the power to boot you off DU.

[2ndAmForComputers]

18. +1

[Starry Messenger]

24. +1

[BrentWil]

30. Do you have an argument against the OP? NT

[L0oniX]

50. The gang is only interested in insulting others. n/t

[cali]

62. so you support pre-emptive war against NK? Brilliant.

[L0oniX]

66. You must be seeing words not spoken. Excellent.

[cali]

61. Yes. Pre-emptive wars are a dangerous concept.

And like Iraq, it's utterly stupid to believe that they will go as planned. Furthermore, war mongering, which is what YOU are doing, is unethical and sick.

[Poll_Blind]

52. +1 nt

PB

[quinnox]

6. you have a history of doing this kind of thing

yup, my memory is like an elephants. Keep up with the war drums!

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Ah so this would be a glorious war we should all get behind, eh?

Fucking warmongers are a dime a dozen.

[mainer]

8. But ... but ... THIS time we'll get it right!

Practice makes perfect. Or that's the way it's supposed to be.

[treestar]

9. I am kind of tired of North Korea

It would be nice if they could be eliminated, the question would be, how? Massive international pressure, maybe?

[KG]

10. oh, so a war of liberation?

not like Iraq at all. nope.

[GP6971]

11. And you're serious about this?????? REALLY???????? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Erect bogeyman, wave flag, sing National Anthem, start shooting. Works every time.

Yep. At least on some people.

[BrentWil]

31. Every event is contextual.

Preemptive war may not be justified in most cases. That doesn't mean it isn't justified in some.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. For many reasons the US will not go there

[BrentWil]

32. South Korea Might. NT

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I do not think anybody will

And trust me, if anybody does, it will be NK invading the south

[BrentWil]

39. I think that is a assumption that would hold for sure in the past...

Not so sure about the future. With various attacks and the clear hollowness of North Korea.. that assumption may or may not hold up in the future.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. While ROE for SK are looser

After the Chonan sinking...they still require the North to attack first.

Regardless, I won't assume cake walk at all on this one.

[BrentWil]

48. That is the major question...

The major question is, despite the lack of equipment, supplies and training (much of the N. Korean Army is used to make a profit for the government not to execute actual training) will the N. Korean Army stand and fight?

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. A guerrilla campaign

A looonnnnggg guerrilla campaign. They have the SOF element to be the backbone of that.

You assume cake walk, you are making a serious mistake.

I am not...and I sure hope planning and contingency planners are not either.

Regardless. There won't be a preemptive strike at present. Part of it, we lack the detailed intel, as inside targets, needed.

[BrentWil]

54. Soldiers have to want to fight for irregular warfare to be effective..

In other words, you have to have a political cause that is relevant to the society to support that. I imagine that will collapse with the regime...

That said, I am not assuming it will be a cake walk. I am just making arguments that it might not be as big a nightmare as normally assumed. We assume alot with N. Korea. Namely, that their people will maintain a long struggle. I have my doubts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. You'd better read up on Junche

And the troubles defectors have

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. So you want to be behind the troops? How far behind?

If not, don't be like the Republican chick-hawks, sign up now.

[Posteritatis]

16. South Korea is not going to do that unless they're hit first.

A war of reunification on the Korean Peninsula would be the single nastiest armed conflict of the last half-century, with maybe the possible exception of the Iran-Iraq War. It'd probably also be the highest-intensity armed conflict of the last half-century, full stop, at least in its initial stages.

Handwringing around here about how people 'obviously' want such a war, I'm quite sure South Korea and the United States are both entirely aware of that. Nobody's going to be calling for some crusade to clean the peninsula up to the Yalu anytime soon unless Pyongyang is dumb enough to try marching in the opposite direction.

[BrentWil]

34. North Korea couldn't last in a war with the South..

Population, GDP, military power..... all the variables favor South Korea.

[Posteritatis]

41. Of course they couldn't. That doesn't mean anything near the DMZ wouldn't still be trashed. (nt)

[wercal]

49. "North Korea couldn't last in a war with the South"

You are absolutley correct. They would flame out in one last desperate launch of all their rockets and nerve gas...killing tens of thousands of people.

But that's not necessarily a good thing.

[GP6971]

19. You like stirring the pot?

You've had 17 replies, but only 1 comment in return. So what's up with that ?

[L0oniX]

20. "dumb war" ...as opposed to a smart war? If it's smart then it's ok?

Maybe S. Korea should have been working on defending themselves instead of getting military welfare from us.

[BrentWil]

37. South Korea can defend itself..

Very Well

[L0oniX]

51. I wish we would stay out of it then. n/t

[SomethingFishy]

21. Case dismissed.

For lack of evidence. Or rational thought.

[KamaAina]

22. Your concern is duly noted.

Now you see why the M$M broadcasts "Ooooh! Ooooh! Boogeyman!!" 24/7/365. Eventually people like you, and who knows how many millions of others, get suckered in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. The Media has been extremely measured on this one

Even late.

[Iggo]

23. Bush Doctrine, Yes !!

[GeorgeGist]

28. How about a nice little...

drone strike?

[defacto7]

36. No.

That is the only argument to be had.

The end.

[ZombieHorde]

38. You make some valid points, but I can't support a preemptive strike against NK.

In my opinion, war should be declared only as a last resort, and we are not there right now. As long as there is any chance of peaceful resolution, I think we should aggressively (pun intended) pursue those options. I am convinced that we have tried all peaceful means of soothing the NK government.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. the collapse of the North Korean regime would mean millions of NK refugeees flooding the South

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 06:25 PM - Edit history (1)

that along the massive destruction wrought by the reigning of artillery down on Seoul and the destruction of major portions of South Korea's transport, energy and industrial infrastructure would mean the end of South Korea as a viable economic entity for a long time to come - to say nothing of the even far worse suffering that would be inflicted on the North

So, in short even a perfectly executed preemptive strike on North Korea that resulted in a very rapid decapitation of their leadership and the collapse of their regime would mean at least several hundred thousands of dead South Koreans - likely a lot more, the destruction of much of South Korea's infrastructure - the flooding of the South with millions of starving refugees - the end of South Korea as a viable economy for a long time to come. The North would have it much worse.

[davidpdx]

85. I think China would end up taking on more refugees than South Korea

Remember the DMZ is heavily mined, something that can't be changed without a huge long term project to remove them. There are a few areas that can be crossed without mines, but not many (the UN Joint Military Forces Area is one of them). If North Korea collapsed, South Korea would have to try to keep refugees from flooding into the country.

I believe the US and South Korea have a contingency plan to deal with that would probably take a decade or more.

As for how a war would start I'm going to address that in a separate post.

[wercal]

47. I was briefly stationed is Korea

I've been to the DMZ, and had the situation briefings.

The situation: Both sides have a tremendous amount of rockets pointed at each other. If war started, tens of thousands of rockets would be launched each way (likely killing more U.S. troops in a few hours, than have died during the entire war in Afghanistan, not to mention civilian deaths). So, its mutually assured destruction....except that doesn't work if the leader of NK is a messianic grandson and son of a dictator, in the most closed off society in the world. Nobody can predict what he might do.

Oh, BTW, it is generally assumed the North has chemical weapons .

I honestly don't know what the solution is in Korea...and this new dictator may decide for us that its time for war...but I don't think we want to start it ourselves. The rivers in both the South and the North would literally be rd with blood...and that blood would be on our hands. And there is NO WAY that Russia and China are going to stand by and watch us assert power in the region.

[yurbud]

56. if N. Korea is finally too much of a burden & embarrassment for China, THEY should do the honors

[cliffordu]

60. Couldn't agree more

[ewagner]

58. Not in our best interest...

for a number of reasons...

##We are already spread pretty thin.

##We can't "afford" another war

##It's morally wrong to attack pre-emptively (our interests are not REASONABLY threatened.)

##Game it out: We overthrow N Korea...we (and S Korea) make the land and people a client state of
S Korea...neocons take over...turn N. Korea into another capitalist utopia "N. Korea IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS"...new, sub-subsistance jobs sping up...cheap and cheaper goods flow into major markets...goods compete with China...China gets pissed...China quits buying
American Debt...China becomes belligerent...Invades Korea...US Retaliates..shit happens...bigtime..

The little dictator dude isn't stupid enough to drive himself into extinction...let his rattle his sabres...his world will collapse around him on his own.

[cliffordu]

59. Enlist, man. Be all you can be!!

Gotta say, you are pretty cavalier with every one else's life.

If the south moves, the the thousands of missles the North have aimed at the Seoul get popped.

Fun times for all.

Maybe we should nuke them from space. It's the only way to be sure.

[Brigid]

63. Um, no. eom

[ellisonz]

64. Wrong. Maintain a strong defensive posture, but do not strike first.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Total agreement.

I usually clash with you in the Gungeon, but on this topic we see eye-to-eye.

[ellisonz]

91. Perhaps...

...that's cause for you to reconsider your positions on gun laws:

[99Forever]

65. Let us know when you've reach the DMZ and...

.. are ready to lead the charge into battle, "Brent."

Oh, and btw, do it on your own fucking dime too.

[DeadEyeDyck]

69. Just damn Dubya.

Can't you find something better to do with your time than post in DU?

[retread]

70. We would spill blood and treasure just to benefit those we seek to kill, right? Sounds familiar!

[magellan]

71. War can always be rationalized

...preemptively or ex post facto. What we haven't been good at since the end of WWII is treating the idea of war - and those it condemns to death and lifelong injury - with serious circumspection, or its aftermath with honest introspection.

Despite the OP's aversion to comparing N Korea to Iraq, the arguments for pre-emptive attack are broadly the same. It's sad to see that just 10 years after the invasion of Iraq based on fabrications and a pie in the sky outcome, there are Excpetionalists with short memories and no respect for history who want to overinflate the N Korean threat and walk us similarly into another unnecessary and misguided conflict.

All I can say to the OP and like-minded hawks in DC is this: Empire America will collapse all the faster under your agenda. So be it.

[backscatter712]

72. Absolutely not.

Nothing good ever comes from "I shot him back first."

If the North Koreans attack, then by all means, I support using the full force of the US military to turn North Korea's military into fine red mist. We have a treaty with South Korea, we agreed to help them defend their territory, and we should uphold that treaty, and protect South Korea.

But no preemptive war.

[bluedigger]

73. Your idea is idiotic.

Partial points for consistency.

[XRubicon]

74. Not to mention our precious bodily fluids

[Blue_Tires]

75. Plainly spoken, well thought out opinion...

So when are you reporting for basic training, tough guy?

I'll give 6/10 for the troll, though

[BrentWil]

80. While it doesn't matter for the argument...

Currently serving..

[Blue_Tires]

84. Ok, low blow on my part...I have no real reason to doubt you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8469949&mesg_id=8469949

Having said that, I'd much rather have the time and energy spent on domestic issues...They are too easily swept aside when there is a foreign boogeyman to focus on...

[bowens43]

76. Fuck that shit

Not our business we need to get the fuck out of there

[pokerfan]

77. Start a costly war in order to prevent a costly war? (nt)

[sarisataka]

82. How can I phrase this...

HELL NO!

-first, we are in a battle of brinkmanship. China is the unquestioned master of the game, NK is their understudy, we are rank amateurs. The goal of the game is to get the other side to blink- either they back off and you win or they turn aggressive and you win. Attacking NK would be the greatest boon we could give.

-SK will not attack without our full support. They have much better resources than NK but they are finite. Offensive war has an amazing appetite for supply, much more so than a defensive war. SK does not have enough reserve to guarantee victory without us. They might make it to victory but only a couple of setbacks and they will literally run out of gas.

-next if NK starts, there will be mass casualties, likely over 1 million civilians. If we or SK start, the toll will be higher. NK ha two much to take out even a plurality of their capability in a pre-emptive strike. Not only would enough survive to lay waste to Seoul, being placed of a defensive footing they would use every weapon, including NBC to attack the SK infrastructure to slow the advance. The population centers would be part of the infrastructure targeted.

-Russia would likely raise hell at the UN but stay out. This is China's backyard and they will come to play. They would provide at least logistical support, likely weapons and "advisers" and if we get too close to the border, they will intervene again.

-a decapitation strike would paralyze NK forces for a short time. After the shock of loosing their leader, or NK uses stock footage to prove he is alive, NK forces would retaliate with the fervor of a religious war. Essentially NK has put forth the leader as a secular god to their population for over sixty years. The fanaticism would equal or surpass that of the Japanese in WW2

-even if a pre-preemptive war succeeds, NK military is destroyed and the people liberated, there is the issue of NK resources. Remember the cost of a peaceful integration of East and West Germany? The difference between the Koreas is greater, the North's infrastructure will be decimated and the South's critically depleted. Only the US or EU could provide the backing to support the combined state. The EU is tying up assets bailing out their poorer members and our economy is reeling from a variety of causes. Neither has the excess to provide support without major economic damage at home. Given the PR disaster an aggressive war would cause, no country in the world would send a dime to help.

[RedCappedBandit]

83. You go. We'll cheer you on. Promise.

[davidpdx]

87. I don't see a preemptive strike as even a faint possiblity

The US and South Korea are preparing in the event that North Korea attacks the South. South Korea won't act unilaterally without consulting the US.

South Korea's economy is not large enough to support both themselves and the North. If the North collapsed, the cost would be in the trillions just to start to bring people out of poverty and upgrade infrastructure. Countries around the world would have to donate to a fund to help rebuild and stabilize North Korea.

The tensions maybe high now, but at some point things will taper off and it will cool down.

I've not only read quite a bit on this subject, I also have lived in South Korea for 9 years.

[fujiyama]

88. Considering the proximity of Seoul to the border and it being well within NK's missile range

I'm sure both the South Korean and US leadership will tread cautiously, which is why any sort of preemptive strike could be disastrous. You already laid out the dangers - and with NK being as militarized as it is, there will be no real way to "catch them by surprise" in any way - one of the few advantages of a preemptive strike in the first place. This will turn into an immediate shooting war. Seoul is very densely populated so casualties will be very high.

The initial invasion in Iraq took just under a month, but that was because Iraq was so heavily scrutinized over the years. They were effectively demilitarized since the first Gulf War, with plenty of inspectors throughout the country. There were also plenty of reports that the Bush administration was exaggerating Iraq's WMD capability for propaganda purposes. We don't really even have any credible intelligence coming out of North Korea. It's more or less a black box. They likely have a small nuclear arsenal and possibly have chemical weapons as well - and proven delivery systems capable of hitting our allies in SK and Japan. Besides what would be the endgame? Kill Un and his merry band of psychotic Stalinites? Just "disarm" them by taking out their nukes and delivery systems? Is our intel even that good?

We need to maintain a strong defensive posture, but look for all possible diplomatic venues to diffuse this situation. And if all that fails and NK is foolish enough to start a war, they are suicidal. Neither the US or SK will hold back, and NK will face a massive retaliation.

[Le Taz Hot]

89. You first.