North Korea shells South Korean island

[Shryke]

Oh? This incident actually fits your definition, in that it was clearly an 'ostentatious show of force'. And of course it was an act of war: the two countries are in a state of war, remember? This is a false dichotomy - an act can be both sabre-rattling and at the same time an act of war. So far, nothing added to the discussion.

Your wider thesis about how this is 'weakness' that will be 'exploited' fails to answer the very good point, put to you more than once, that it's by no means clear that a more forceful retaliation would deter further provocations. You want to simply assume that: but it's the central point of your whole argument! If you can't prove it, you're just flapping your gums. Vague generalities and blithe assertion won't pass for an argument on this one. Make an argument instead of begging the question.

Seriously.

You continue to say exactly what everyone else has been saying most of this thread, while pretending it's some great revelation handed down from on high by you and that everything we've said is wrong, even though we are saying the same thing.

NK will engage in a bunch of saber-rattling incidents, SK will not start a war over it because the cost isn't worth it and NK will get a few concessions. This is the standard on the peninsula.

The real thing you can't seem to grasp is that "showing weakness" or whatever you wanna call it isn't a big issue. SK is making the best decision of those available to them.

[The Magic Man]

So if we're just talking about the NK's, and you've already said the NK's don't want a full out war, then are you really just saying that not responding to this attack may result in similar attacks in the future. Okay, I agree with that to some extent, but frankly, that's not earth-shaking. North Korea has been doing shit they're not supposed to be doing almost since the armistice. Here's a link to a listing of NK provocations covering 1950-2003 -- before both of the most recent incidents.

Good, then we agree -- SK's demonstration of weakness invites further attacks, just as the historical attacks invited the most recent shellings. No doubt, continued desmontrations of weakness like this will lead to more in the future.

I mention these to point out that despite these actions, the ROK has advanced and grown tremendously during that period. And I don't expect the latest attacks to impede the ROK's continued development, nor to arrest the slow decline of North Korea.

Ironically, in spite of SK's increasing national power, NK continues to kill SK's people without retaliation.

As for the claim of no retaliation for the ship sinking, yes, there was no military retaliation, but the South did cut off all trade with the North, which I suspect will cause greater damage to the North than the sinking of a ship did to the South. I'd agree it would have been better if the ROK's had returned fire immediately, but honestly, it's not something likely to make much difference in the long run. The ROK's have returned fire in the past, killing NK troops, but it hasn't stopped the occasional provocation from the North.

Obviously, the trade cuts over NK's sinking of the SK ship, which provoked no real response from SK -- another demonstration of weakness -- failed to stop the most recent NK attack.

That is undoubtedly correct, although the killing of civilians in this most recent attack may have been overplaying their hand. I suspect the ROK's will be more ready next time they do something controversial to back it up with assets readied for retaliation. I think that was the screwup here -- the ROK's did this last exercise knowing it was going to provoke the NK's, but were completely unprepared to respond. Hence, Defense Minister was shown the door?

NK didn't overplay their hand -- the attack has gone unpunished.

But aside from that, what do these NK attacks actually accomplish in the big picture? You're talking about the big picture with respect to Iraq/Afghanistan, why not look at it here as well? As you pointed out, the NK's have been doing this stuff for awhile, and what has it gotten them? Widespread international isolation, famine, an economy in the shitter, and a primary enemy to the south who is comparatively far stronger than it was when the last war ended. NK is desparate because it's provocations have brought it nothing of substance. Killing a few ROK's each year hasn't changed that, which makes it a losing strategy.

Big picture -- facilitation of the regime's continuation, with regional and international implications.

And given that the Chinese apparently are getting fed up with them as well, it looks like the NK's may be painting themselves into a strategic corner while congratulating themselves on the tactical success of firing onto a remote SK island.

A tactical success with regional (and international) implications -- facilitation of the current regime's continued rule for another generation.

[mormont]

So you agree with me, but just don't want to admit it, eh, mormont? :P

Nah. I agree with you which is why I said so. Next time I'll be sure to give you a namecheck, though. ;)

Seriously, I'm pretty much as much of a hawk as it gets. But if the same crap has been going on for more than 50 years, and the ROK has not only survived by absolutely thrived during that period, while the North has gone in the opposite direction, the NK pattern of provocations seems to be failing horribly in a strategic sense.

The ROK failure to be prepared to retaliate here is unfortunate, but it isn't significant strategically because it can easily be remedied the next time the NK's try something like this. It's a nice scary headline, but beyond that...nothing lasting.

This is it in a nutshell. Magic Man keeps going on about 'weakness' but can't articulate what that actually means in the long game. Yes, they give the NK leadership temporary domestic political gains or even an excuse to derail international talks if they find them inconvenient, but they would likely do them for those reasons whatever the ROK response. There's no 'exploitation' of the weakness as part of a longer strategy.

Actually lobbing shells and killing targets goes beyond the shaking of swords in scabbards.

Literally, yes. But to describe as 'sabre-rattling' an incident where live fire took place and people were killed is hardly unprecedented in common parlance. But that was a nitpick on your part to start with, so I'll stop picking back.

I think I've answered the question several times -- an exploitation of SK's demonstrated weakness will result in further attacks. Without adequate reatliation -- or no retaliation at all -- attacks will continue, which has been the case since the 50s.

This is not answering the question, it's begging the question. You still don't address the issue of how and why stronger responses would deter further attacks, or what 'exploitation' means other than further attacks (ones that might take place anyway).

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Good, then we agree -- SK's demonstration of weakness invites further attacks, just as the historical attacks invited the most recent shellings. No doubt, continued desmontrations of weakness like this will lead to more in the future.

But the NK's keep engaging in such provocations even when the ROK's do retaliate. So where's the causation?

Obviously, the trade cuts over NK's sinking of the SK ship, which provoked no real response from SK -- another demonstration of weakness -- failed to stop the most recent NK attack.

Ah, okay. So is it your position that the NK's would not engage in future attacks if the ROK's had fired a few hundred rounds back at them?

]Big picture -- facilitation of the regime's continuation, with regional and international implications.

You keep assuming that something would change if the ROK's retaliate, but there is zero evidence of that. What helps keep the regime in place is the confrontation itself, regardless of whether the ROK's fire back or not. The sole purpose is to convince their own people that the ROK's and the meanie Americans are their sworn enemies just waiting for an opportunity to cross the border and make them all slaves. The ROK's firing back doesn't change that calculus one iota.

[The Magic Man]

Nobody knows.

The CIA reports a minimum of 32% of the population are Sunni. Let's reduce that to 1.0% just to be safe. Out of a population of about 30 million, that leaves what... 300,000? A safe bet, I think.

So, that makes 300,000 targets. Add the Christians, and the number of targets move toward a million. Thus, given an extremely low estimate, the claim that the lack of targets is the reason for the absence of killings is a bit hard to swallow.

[The Magic Man]

But the NK's keep doing this crap even when the ROK's do retaliate, so identifying the lack of retaliation as the cause of more attacks doesn't seem valid. So if the only consequence of the "weakness" of not retaliating is more attacks, but there will be more attacks anyway.... :dunno:

Sure, why not? Inadequate retaliation, like no retaliation, are deomstrations of weakness.

Seriously, Magic Man, do you think the NK's really care if any of their troops or people are killed in retaliatory strikes? They've had hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million, civilians die from famine. They've lost troops in clashes with the ROK's in 2002, and as recently as November 2009, had quite the naval clash in which the ROK's pummelled an NK ship, causing at least some deaths. There's a history of potshots and mini-invasions going back well before that, especially in the 60's. But the NK's just don't seem to care if they lose a few troops, because all they're really trying to do is convince themselves of the validity of their own paranoia.

I don't know -- I'm not NK. Are you? SK, though, has demonstrated that they are willing to accept the killings of its civilians without retaliation.

[The Magic Man]

Literally, yes. But to describe as 'sabre-rattling' an incident where live fire took place and people were killed is hardly unprecedented in common parlance. But that was a nitpick on your part to start with, so I'll stop picking back.

Not just literally -- definitionally. When common parlance is wrong, pointing out the error would be appreciated, I'd hope. If not, continue using the term based on a false understanding of what it actually means.

This is not answering the question, it's begging the question. You still don't address the issue of how and why stronger responses would deter further attacks, or what 'exploitation' means other than further attacks (ones that might take place anyway).

Exploiting SK's demonstration of weakness via further attacks isn't enough? Why not?

[The Magic Man]

But the NK's keep engaging in such provocations even when the ROK's do retaliate. So where's the causation?

Inadequate retaliation is as bad if not worse than no retaliation at all.

Ah, okay. So is it your position that the NK's would not engage in future attacks if the ROK's had fired a few hundred rounds back at them?

No -- it depends on the degree of retaliation.

You keep assuming that something would change if the ROK's retaliate, but there is zero evidence of that. What helps keep the regime in place is the confrontation itself, regardless of whether the ROK's fire back or not. The sole purpose is to convince their own people that the ROK's and the meanie Americans are their sworn enemies just waiting for an opportunity to cross the border and make them all slaves. The ROK's firing back doesn't change that calculus one iota.

So, by attacking SK, the NK regime maintains its rule. Sounds like a case of NK exploiting SK's inability to adequately retaliate. Is SK aware that its failure is keeping its most dangerous enemy in power?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sure, why not? Inadequate retaliation, like no retaliation, are deomstrations of weakness.

I don't know -- I'm not NK.

"I don't know" doesn't cut it when you're the one claiming that the NK's will attack again because the ROK's didn't retaliate yet for this incident. History says that the NK's will attack again regardless of whether the ROK's retaliated or not.

But at this point, you're arguing for the sake of arguing now has you arguing against yourself. Here's what you said earlier in this exact same thread:

...My bet is that SK will miscalculate before NK.

SK, with more options available, needs to chillax....:

....A few people argued that SK would reach a level where they'd engage in massive retaliation. Calls for chillaxing were mostly targeted against those who felt that SK was about to go all crazy and that being frightened was a reasonable reaction at this time.

Of course, SK (being prudent) will stay put and accept the recent shellings. To react otherwise would be foolish.

[The Magic Man]

You continue to say exactly what everyone else has been saying most of this thread, while pretending it's some great revelation handed down from on high by you and that everything we've said is wrong, even though we are saying the same thing.

If you think we're saying the same thing, why do you continue to argue?

NK will engage in a bunch of saber-rattling incidents, SK will not start a war over it because the cost isn't worth it and NK will get a few concessions. This is the standard on the peninsula.

Sure. But how? Through NK exploitation of SK's demonstrated weakness.

The real thing you can't seem to grasp is that "showing weakness" or whatever you wanna call it isn't a big issue. SK is making the best decision of those available to them.

Actually, the issue is bigger than you think. First, SK Soldiers and citizens continue to die while SK does nothing in retaliation. Second, a very hostile regime maintains rule. Third, the US and others continue to be burdened with the defense of SK -- nearly six decades worth of resources. Fourth, NK has exploited the situation long enough to produce the threat of nuclear war.

A little exploitation goes a long way, huh?

[TerraPrime]

Actually, the issue is bigger than you think. First, SK Soldiers and citizens continue to die while SK does nothing in retaliation.

This is only relevant if you can show that retaliating will prevent further civilian and military deaths.

Second, a very hostile regime maintains rule.

What does this even mean?

Third, the US and others continue to be burdened with the defense of SK -- nearly six decades worth of resources.

If SK retaliates openly, it will only further harden NK's position and impedes progress towards unification. Without unification and normalization, the U.S. will continue to have to present a military presence in the Korean peninsula.

Fourth, NK has exploited the situation long enough to produce the threat of nuclear war.

The perceived weakness of their Southern neighbor probably has had little to do with NK's decision to go nuclear. It's not the SK that they fear, anyway, but the U.S. The nuclear arsenal gains them admittance to the international platform so that they're not relegated to one of third-world tinpot dictatorships. They install a nuclear program as a bargaining chip on the international stage, not as a reaction to their neighbors.

[The Magic Man]

"I don't know" doesn't cut it when you're the one claiming that the NK's will attack again because the ROK's didn't retaliate yet for this incident. History says that the NK's will attack again regardless of whether the ROK's retaliated or not.

Actually, when it comes to the question on whether or not NK will attack -- I do know... NK will attack again as a result of SK demonstrations of weakness. Also, remember, history also shows that adequate retaliation results in preventing further attacks, though SK lacks the real capacity to do so.

But at this point, you're arguing for the sake of arguing now has you arguing against yourself. Here's what you said earlier in this exact same thread:

Actually, no, I'm not arguing against myself -- your quotes do not oppose current reality: Yes, SK's demonstrations of weakness is the reason for NK's continued exploitation of SK for various gains -- time to threaten the world with nuclear weapons, continued rule, concessions, and the burdening of several other nations' national power -- SK, Japan, the US, etc.

Moreover, SK's demonstrations of weakness are more than perception. Although SK has the paper strength to outright defeat NK in war, SK will not engage. Why? Out of prudence. Unfortunately, this policy of prudence, manifested in the form of no retaliation for the killings of its Soldiers and citizens, facilitates NK's continued attacks.

[mormont]

Exploiting SK's demonstration of weakness via further attacks isn't enough? Why not?

Because you're begging the question. Asked to justify the claim that a strong response would prevent further attacks, you point out attacks that have already happened and say they happened because a strong response was lacking. But that's just repeating the same claim about events in the past rather than events in the future.

You haven't shown that these attacks could have been prevented. Since they served a short-term advantage that was not dependent on the losses they incurred, and apparently served no long-term strategic purpose, it seems likely that they would still have happened had the ROK responded with anything short of a serious attempt to topple the North Korean regime.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Actually, when it comes to the question on whether or not NK will attack -- I do know... NK will attack again as a result of SK demonstrations of weakness.

How do you know this? What evidence is there in the history of the relationship between North and South Korea showing that NK will attack because ROK has supposedly demonstrated weakness?

Also, remember, history also shows that adequate retaliation results in preventing further attacks, though SK lacks the real capacity to do so.

Where is the evidence that retaliation has worked as you claim in Korea? And if you're argument is that South Korea lacks the real capacity to retaliate, then faulting them for not retaliating is ludicrous.

Actually, no, I'm not arguing against myself -- your quotes do not oppose current reality

That is sheer gibberish cloaked in fancy language. Has Cugel the Clever come back to haunt us?

Just to remind you, here is your exact quote -- again: "Of course, SK (being prudent) will stay put and accept the recent shellings. To react otherwise would be foolish."

Moreover, SK's demonstrations of weakness are more than perception. Although SK has the paper strength to outright defeat NK in war, SK will not engage. Why? Out of prudence. Unfortunately, this policy of prudence, manifested in the form of no retaliation for the killings of its Soldiers and citizens, facilitates NK's continued attacks.

And as you said, to do otherwise would be foolish."

[The Magic Man]

Because you're begging the question. Asked to justify the claim that a strong response would prevent further attacks, you point out attacks that have already happened and say they happened because a strong response was lacking. But that's just repeating the same claim about events in the past rather than events in the future.

I never claimed that a stronger response would deter further attacks -- you assumed.

You haven't shown that these attacks could have been prevented. Since they served a short-term advantage that was not dependent on the losses they incurred, and apparently served no long-term strategic purpose, it seems likely that they would still have happened had the ROK responded with anything short of a serious attempt to topple the North Korean regime.

NK attacks could be stopped permanently, subject to an adequate response. Anything less will maintain the status quo -- SK's continued demonstrations of weakness in the form of no retaliation and NK's continued exploitation of that weakness.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I never claimed that a stronger response would deter further attacks -- you assumed...

NK attacks could be stopped permanently, subject to an adequate response.

Wow.

And of course, a stronger response would be not only imprudent, but "foolish".

[The Magic Man]

How do you know this? What evidence is there in the history of the relationship between North and South Korea showing that NK will attack because ROK has supposedly demonstrated weakness?

History demonstrates it. Last May the NKs killed dozens of SK sailors, and no retaliation occurred. This last month the NKs did the same thing but killed Soldiers and civilians. Again, no retaliation. Exploitation based on weakness leads to further exploitation.

Of course, common sense also supports this. When a bully punches his victim, and gains a few dollars in lunch money and without punishment, the bully will do it again the next day, and again after that until the victim responds adequately to the aggression.

Where is the evidence that retaliation has worked as you claim in Korea? And if you're argument is that South Korea lacks the real capacity to retaliate, then faulting them for not retaliating is ludicrous.

Are you going to limit the principle of adequate retaliation to the Koreas? If not, let's take a look at the US involvement in Somalia. The US attacked the local warlords. The local warlods did not like it, so they retaliated against the Americans. The response was adequate, forcing the Americans flee.

Also, I'm not faulting SK for failing to adequately retaliate. My only intent here is to explain why their demonstrations of weakness have led to further attacks. Although SK's policy of prudence has prevented an all out war, NK continues to gain at SK's expense.

That is sheer gibberish cloaked in fancy language. Has Cugel the Clevel come back to haunt us?

You seem a bit emotional.

Just to remind you, here is your exact quote -- again: "Of course, SK (being prudent) will stay put and accept the recent shellings. To react otherwise would be foolish."

What's the point of the reminder? Yes, it was prudent for SK not to escalate the situation. Unfortunately, this policy is also a demonstration of weakness that will be exploited vai further attacks in the future.

[The Magic Man]

And of course, a stronger response would be not only imprudent, but "foolish".

Yes -- imprudent and foolish, though it also demonstrates weakness. SK needs to take it in the ass, accept the fact that they will be exploited, and maintain the greater peace.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

History demonstrates it. Last May the NKs killed dozens of SK sailors, and no retaliation occurred. This last month the NKs did the same thing but killed Soldiers and civilians. Again, no retaliation. Exploitation based on weakness leads to further exploitation.

You've got a rather massive logical hole here, Magic Man, and history demonstrates nothing of the sort. Last November, the NK's sent a boat where they shouldn't have, and the ROK's pounded the hell out of it. Yet, the NK's went after another ROK boat in May anyway. All you've shown is that the NK's will keep up provocations in either case.

Of course, common sense also supports this. When a bully punches his victim, and gains a few dollars in lunch money and without punishment, the bully will do it again the next day, and again after that until the victim responds adequately to the aggression.

Analogies rarely work the same in every situation, so let's try a different one. For example, a "bullying" guy who engages in spousal abuse may beat up his wife. Now maybe she decides to "retaliate" the next day by hitting him back. So, he goes nuts and beats her to death. Then the cops come and shoot him, which is little consolation to her.

Are you going to limit the principle of adequate retaliation to the Koreas? If not, let's take a look at the US involvement in Somalia. The US attacked the local warlords. The local warlords did not like it, so they retaliated against the Americans. The response was adequate, forcing the Americans flee.

Okay, the Germans were oppressing the Czechs during WWII. The Czechs retaliated by killing Reinhard Heydrich. Rather than being cowed, the Germans leveled the village of Lidice, killed all its male inhabitants, and shipped everyone else off to concentration camps.

Also, I'm not faulting SK for failing to adequately retaliate. My only intent here is to explain why their demonstrations of weakness have led to further attacks.

If you're not "faulting" South Korea, then your entire argument is pointless because you agree they are going the right thing. As I said, arguing for it's own sake. And once again, you're ignoring that the blasting of an NK ship last November, which surely was not an act of "weakness", did absolutely nothing to deter the May attack by the NK.

You keep assuming that other people think the same as you do, or respond to stimuli the same way. They don't, necessarily. If the NK leadership doesn't give a shit if some of their civilians or soldiers/sailors are killed (and all the evidence suggests exactly that), then the entire premise of "retaliation" kind of falls apart.

You seem a bit emotional.

Huh?

What's the point of the reminder? Yes, it was prudent for SK not to escalate the situation. Unfortunately, this policy is also a demonstration of weakness that will be exploited vai further attacks in the future.

Acting "prudently", as opposed to "foolishly", is not weakness. It is intelligence, and everyone here except you seems to recongize that. Actually, I think you even recognize it, but are simply engaging in sophistry for its own sake.

[The Magic Man]

You've got a rather massive logical hole here, Magic Man, and history demonstrates nothing of the sort. Last November, the NK's sent a boat where they shouldn't have, and the ROK's pounded the hell out of it. Yet, the NK's went after another ROK boat in May anyway. All you've shown is that the NK's will keep up provocations in either case.

I disagree. The NKs killed several dozen SK sailors, and received zero punishment. It's no surprise that the NKs followed this up with another attack, which again resulted in no retaliation. Common sense takes over -- expect another attack in the future, with additional concessions granted to NK at SK's expense.

Analogies rarely work the same in every situation, so let's try a different one. For example, a "bullying" guy who engages in spousal abuse may beat up his wife. Now maybe she decides to "retaliate" the next day by hitting him back. So, he goes nuts and beats her to death. Then the cops come and shoot him, which is little consolation to her.

This analogy works for me, too. The wife's response was obviously inadequate, and thus both imprudent and foolish. Although accepting the abuse would have demonstrated weakness and facilitated further abuse, a greater peace would have been maintained.

Okay, the Germans were oppressing the Czechs during WWII. The Czechs retaliated by killing Reinhard Heydrich. Rather than being cowed, the Germans leveled the village of Lidice, killed all its male inhabitants, and shipped everyone else off to concentration camps.

Apparently, the Czech response was inadequate. And, inadequate retaliation, like no retaliation at all, invited further exploitation as demonstrated by your example.

If you're not "faulting" South Korea, then your entire argument is pointless because you agree they are going the right thing. As I said, arguing for it's own sake. And once again, you're ignoring that the blasting of an NK ship last November, which surely was not an act of "weakness", did absolutely nothing to deter the May attack by the NK.

Blasting the NK ship proved to be an inadequate response, which is, like no response at all, a demonstration of weakness. This, of course, facilitates further attacks as demonstrated by the May attack.

You keep assuming that other people think the same as you do, or respond to stimuli the same way. They don't, necessarily. If the NK leadership doesn't give a shit if some of their civilians or soldiers/sailors are killed (and all the evidence suggests exactly that), then the entire premise of "retaliation" kind of falls apart.

Not at all -- adequate retaliation would prevent further attacks.

Acting "prudently", as opposed to "foolishly", is not weakness. It is intelligence, and everyone here except you seems to recongize that. Actually, I think you even recognize it, but are simply engaging in sophistry for its own sake.

When forced with the option of accepting a beating or death, the prudent choice would be to take a beating. Unfortunately, that act of prudence is still a demonstration of weakness, albeit one that would maintain a greater peace at the cost of further beatings.