North Korea

Chaos for awhile, then buying a lot of resources from Canada and sending it to India for production.

Any war on NK's part would basically be a surrender of the Kim regime to whatever military leader can get the soldiers' support after they begin to starve. Wars are determined by logistics, and NK doesn't have the logistics to last more than a month. They're at best a Glass Cannon that can do a lot of damage before getting stomped into the dirt. The question now is how to prevent that damage from happening to civilian populations.

The optimal solution would involve NK accepting a lot of Chinese troops into their territory under the terms of an alliance, only for the Chinese to betray the treaty, annex the country, and depose the Kim government. Since regional economic stability is in China's best interests, they'd have every reason to snooker the North Koreans like this.

The best solution is NK realizing they'll be stomped into oblivion if they continue and apologize profusely, go behind their curtain and die of starvation in a decade or so.

Hm.. there has been a large buildup in China's PLA lately.

The PLA has been one of the largest armies in the world since its conception, but since the mid-Nineties it's actually been getting relatively smaller (if better equipped). According to Wikipedia, major cuts (of about 200,000 personnel) were carried out as recently as 2005.

It's still got the largest number of active-duty troops in the world, but it's far less mechanized than either the Russian or American armies, and the DPRK itself has a much larger reserve force (of about eight million).

There's not going to be a world war. Neither participant has any economic incentive to shift to total war, China doesn't have the logistics capability to project conventional forces out of its region, and there's absolutely no reason for anyone to consider a nuclear exchange. The worst that can come out of this is a repeat of the first Korean War — which is quite bad enough.

edited 23rd Nov '10 11:03:56 AM by Nornagest

Military stuff isn't affected directly. I think.

But yeah, a metric butt-load of our consumer products are made over there.

It's a two-way street. A war with us isn't in their best interests, nor is it in ours. North Korea, though, isn't under that constraint - just the threat of the end of their regime.

Radical: No way a conflict there wouldn't involve civilian casualties and such. They can barely keep them fed properly now.

I'm pretty sure NK doesn't really care that much if they lose their civilians by the time they're in actual war.

There have already been civilians injured in the South.

I doubt North Korea has civilian considerations in their priorities. They have devoted a lot of their people and resources into the military, following their Songun "Military First" policy.

edited 23rd Nov '10 11:16:55 AM by QQQQQ

Well, no workers to work the fields or the factories, and you'll have problems keeping the military happy, naturally. Amazing what decades of brainwashing, propoganda and fear will do for morale.

To think: What if I had been born in that country instead...? Sobering thought.

If it goes to open war they'll probably capture SK citizens to work the fields.

I would expect it to be over rather fast actually, NK throws enough bodies at the border that the rest can walk on them instead of the minefields, and than the wrath of anybody who thinks being on the US's good side will descend over the course of the next month or so.

Fast isn't always better. Haitian earthquake was but a few minutes, but look how screwed up the country stil is, months later.

Even a few days of intense conflict will be ruinous. Yes, nice that the bullets have stopped flying, but now we'll have millions of displaced people to feed, clothe and shelter. They get some really harsh winters there.

Yes, but at least Southerners won't be forced into slave labor on NK farms while the scared farmers usually tending the fields are being screamed at by a pollitical officer for not knowing the proper way to execute a civilian. That's a plus.

Now now, I may not be a genius, but both the American and Chinese goverment are opting for the "peaceful, no conflict" way. Maybe China would be interested in going to war against America- in a few years, that is. A LOT of years. Now's not the time for them to do that, it is not in their interests.

As for a question that has been repeated across this topic: "Why NK would be interested into going to war?". Well, as an inhabitant of Banana Republic Venezuela, let me clear your eyes.

Dictators (or wannabes) like Chavez, Kim Jong II, they aren't the brightest bulbs. Give them a few years (or decades), and they get up on their pedestals, thinking they are gods, and trying to piss on some random nation. As you may know, Chavez constantly talks of how he could "destroy America, they don't stand a chance", that is the reason why people like him or Kim are getting nuclear weapons. While Kim may not be interested in America at all, people like him actually believe that they can Squash every nation. Believe me, I have to live it everyday here. In fact some of the most "optimistic" venezuelans actually hope for America getting tired of Chavez and taking him down.

If Kim gets the chance, he WILL atack SK. The ramifications from that I can't tell. As many have said before me, NK would not last long. However, Nks "allies" on the other hand. (including us) I can't tell.

oh hell Kim Jong, what the heck were you thinking...

I always wonder how much of a hand Kim has in these things. Did he specifically give an order for some shelling or did he just say to an admiral "I'm feeling asshatty today. Kill some Southerners?"

There is a serious chance of full-scale war here, I doubt anyone will be saying "same shit, different time" for much longer now that Kim Jong-Il is on his last legs and losing control of his dictatorship. May the South win. I hope, for the sake of both Koreas, that the DPRK is dissolved and a gradual reunification process can proceed.

edited 23rd Nov '10 11:55:06 AM by Shichibukai

Why is this more likely to spark a war than the sinking in May?

Interesting comments, Polarity. I'd been under the impression that the tinpot side of Chavez was being played up in US media; there's no denying that he's a nationalist demagogue, but no nation's short of those.

As to NK, I've long suspected that most of the point behind the nation's brinksmanship is internal. No doubt it serves a useful purpose in convincing other nations to bribe it to go away, but anyone in the Party hierarchy that looked at the neighboring countries objectively must have noticed that economic liberalization is a better bet than depending on thinly veiled foreign aid. So it must serve a political purpose that isn't obvious to outsiders. My guess would be that the Party needs, or thinks it needs, a credible external threat to stay in power, and these incidents are all manufactured in order to keep the "southern enemy" credible.

^^ SK civilians were hit in the crossfire.

Out of curiosity, is there any chance of South Korea taking those gun positions out by surprise in a first strike? By air I mean.

edited 23rd Nov '10 12:01:09 PM by GameChainsaw

If you're right Norn, and that's logical, that's almost worryingly Nineteen Eighty Four.

My estimate of the probability of war between the Koreas in the short term is somewhere in the 20-40% range — non-trivial, but I wouldn't bet on it.

that's almost worryingly Nineteen Eighty Four.

Of course it is. Orwell was a pretty cynical guy and probably underestimated the role of ideology, but The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism is a pretty good playbook for running a totalitarian state, fictional evidence or no.

edited 23rd Nov '10 12:03:42 PM by Nornagest

@Hungry Joe:

Two very serious incidents in one year. Civilian deaths. The North is responsible. Add to that the 'discovery' of a new nuclear plant. That could make negotiations extremely difficult.

edited 23rd Nov '10 12:05:31 PM by Shichibukai

If you're right Norn, and that's logical, that's almost worryingly Nineteen Eighty Four.

I thought that the DPRK's Eastasia-ness was already understood?