07-29-2003, 12:28 AM
Well, I'm not Korean, but I'm afraid I must disagree with your assessment.
Gauging the mind of Kim Jong Il seems an impossible task. We may never know what his internal goals are. If his goal is the maintenance of his own power, a war with any possibility of losing may be an inferior choice to ruling a decrepit, yet loyal state. If his goal is reunification under his rule, then the sound of artillery in Seoul is assured. I just don't know.
Then again, he may be a total nutbar, and therefore even less predictable.
If the tanks do surge forward, I have to think they wouldn't go far. The North's army is large, but in a parlous state, short of even semi-modern weapons and fuel. The South's army is over 600,000 strong, well equipped, trained, and motivated. Removing the 37,000 American troops alters the geopolitical stage more than the military arena. In addition, it would be easy to assume that rapid deployment of American air assets from Japan would provide considerable firepower and virtually instant air supremacy.
During the (First?) Korean War, the North was strongly supported in economic and military terms by China and the USSR. I just can't see any support coming from Russia, and precious little from China.
On the other hand, the North has proven skilled at infiltration in the past, and might prove significant as saboteurs. Also, the proximity of Seoul allows the North to do massive damage without moving an inch, even without the Nuclear Option.
It's that option that concerns me. I see no reason Kim would refrain from nuclear blackmail, and no reason he wouldn't follow through on his threats if he felt a counterstrike from the US unlikely. What do you think about that scenario?
As for unification, I think it's possible if the North completely collapses. Korea has always been pretty monocultural, for better or worse, and I think that would aid in the assimilation and rehabilitation of the North. Deucedly expensive, though.
Gauging the mind of Kim Jong Il seems an impossible task. We may never know what his internal goals are. If his goal is the maintenance of his own power, a war with any possibility of losing may be an inferior choice to ruling a decrepit, yet loyal state. If his goal is reunification under his rule, then the sound of artillery in Seoul is assured. I just don't know.
Then again, he may be a total nutbar, and therefore even less predictable.
If the tanks do surge forward, I have to think they wouldn't go far. The North's army is large, but in a parlous state, short of even semi-modern weapons and fuel. The South's army is over 600,000 strong, well equipped, trained, and motivated. Removing the 37,000 American troops alters the geopolitical stage more than the military arena. In addition, it would be easy to assume that rapid deployment of American air assets from Japan would provide considerable firepower and virtually instant air supremacy.
During the (First?) Korean War, the North was strongly supported in economic and military terms by China and the USSR. I just can't see any support coming from Russia, and precious little from China.
On the other hand, the North has proven skilled at infiltration in the past, and might prove significant as saboteurs. Also, the proximity of Seoul allows the North to do massive damage without moving an inch, even without the Nuclear Option.
It's that option that concerns me. I see no reason Kim would refrain from nuclear blackmail, and no reason he wouldn't follow through on his threats if he felt a counterstrike from the US unlikely. What do you think about that scenario?
As for unification, I think it's possible if the North completely collapses. Korea has always been pretty monocultural, for better or worse, and I think that would aid in the assimilation and rehabilitation of the North. Deucedly expensive, though.