Under what condition should we initiate war against North Korea?

[Machjo]

Please notice that in the thread title I said 'initiate'. Clearly if the North Koreans attack first, the South Korean Army probably already has the authority to take defensive action without even the approval of the South Korean government, as that approval, within clearly defined constraints, has likely been given already decades ago by the South Korean parliament.

However, for us to initiate an attack would certainly require a higher standard. What do you think ought to be the minimum standard required for us to initiate an attack against North Korea?

I've set up the poll so you can choose more than one option if you wish.

OK, I voted the second option in the poll. I'm certainly not a pacifist, but also believe that any kind of initiated war must meet the highest standards, and I think getting the UN General Assembly to accept UN leadership in such a war would be next to impossible (the UN is generally averse to war except as an absolute last resort). So I figure if the UN actually accepted to lead such a war, then we'd know that we truly have the full backing of the international community. This also means:

1. With North Korea realizing it has the whole world against it, it's also more likely to surrender more quickly,

2. With the whole world fully supporting our efforts, we could truly overwhelm North Korea's defenses quickly so as to reduce the risk of civilian casualties, and

3. with such an overwhelming force supporting our efforts, we'd likely be able to integrate North Korea into South Korea quickly enough without all the headaches we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan,

4. We could do all this without bankrupting our economy since many countries would be pitching in, unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Trotz]

Pacifism (or isolationist really. You wouldn't see me bow over to anyone who decides to invade British Columbia),

we are very much responsible for North Korea and Kim IL Jong. Kim IL Jong uses us as a scapegoat for all his country's problems and his people continue to lap it up. That wouldn't have been the case, as evident in Vietnam, if the Korean peninsula was united under a single government.

If the stories I've read about South Korean conscripts are true, namely their lack of morale, that's probably a good indication why the Americans still maintain a large military presence there.

 

[Kreskin]

I support it now.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Declarations of War by the Governor-in-Council

I cannot think of any situations that would warrant, in my view, an attack unless it is a response to an act of war. In the case of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, this is further complicated by the fact that there is already a state of war between the DPRK, and the Republic of Korea, and recent attacks between the two have simply been instances within this pre-existing state of warfare.

In the context of Canada, I am of the view that we should avoid any half-assed "armed interventions" at any point in our future, and suggest, instead, that only an issue so serious as to warrant an actual declaration of war, following the proper constitutional procedures, should bring an intervention from us. Recall, of course, that proper declarations of war may only be made, on the advice of ministers, by His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada. If we are unwilling to make such a serious decision, then we have no place sending the women and men of the Canadian Forces into danger.

 

[Colpy]

Death to Tyrants.

But South Korea has to be the nation to make the decision to go to war, and this time "there is no alternative to victory", to quote the guy that was right in the first place (MacArthur)

If we go to war, Korea must be one nation when we are done. All this half-way crap we have indulged ourselves with since World War Two...........all it has done is bred disrespect for the west, and gotten us deeper and deeper into trouble.

In 500 years historians (if there are any, usually not in any but free societies) will see the destruction of western civilization as a simple lack of will to survive. A society become so spoiled by its freedom, so relaxed in its riches, so over-involved in self-critical navel gazing, that it simply could not get off the ****ing couch and defend itself............

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I hope the satellites are registering targets as we speak.

 

[Trotz]

Death to Tyrants.

But South Korea has to be the nation to make the decision to go to war, and this time "there is no alternative to victory", to quote the guy that was right in the first place (MacArthur)

If we go to war, Korea must be one nation when we are done. All this half-way crap we have indulged ourselves with since World War Two...........all it has done is bred disrespect for the west, and gotten us deeper and deeper into trouble.

In 500 years historians (if there are any, usually not in any but free societies) will see the destruction of western civilization as a simple lack of will to survive. A society become so spoiled by its freedom, so relaxed in its riches, so over-involved in self-critical navel gazing, that it simply could not get off the ****ing couch and defend itself............

Yeah, the United States certainty created more problems than it prevented. Things like backstabbing France and England during the Suez Crisis, toppling secular and modern despots in the Middle East and letting Religious-Fundamentalist (see stone-age tribesmen) take their place, et al.

The best thing we could had done in the Middle East would be to have annexed them back in the 1860s, last I check there weren't many people living in the Arabian Peninsula then (1 million at the most) and we could have turned that peninsula into another Australia. Oh well, I blame it on democracy and overall incompetencies it created within Anglo-Saxon administration.

I imagine the Chinese, with their 1.4 billion people, will not be so forgiving when it is their time to play Empire...!

 

[Machjo]

To Five paradox and Colpie above. I agree with both of you to varying degrees. There can be no half-way. If it's going to be half-way, then we'd be better off waiting until we have the necessary support to ensure a full war. Making an official declaration of war like 5P suggested above would be one way to ensure full support. Bear in mind though that that alone, though certainly helpful, is not enough. After all, all it would take would be an election for it to all fall apart. Therefore we must be absolutely sure there will be minimal resistance. Making a formal and official declaration of war is definitely a must.

I think getting UN approval would be another must, as without that many would question the legality of it in international law, again risking a premature pullout come a following election year in Canada.

Combine approval from the UN General Assembly with a formal and offical declaration of war on Canada's part, and at least legalists, even if they don't support the war, would at least not oppose it either and simply remain neutral. With them out of the way, it's likely that:

1. We could shift all of our military resources towards fighting this war, and

2. Should it take more than four years or so (God forbid), with the legalists out of the way at least, it's also more likely to continue to maintain full public support election after election until the war is won, with minimal vacillation.

Without these points, people would naturally question if there are ulterior motives, hidden agendas, etc. and so with all the public criticism, governments would tend to be more secretive and excessively cautious, public support for the war weaker, and so the risk of failure or even withdrawal come a following election greater too. The last thing we'd need is another Vietnam, where the US lost not so much the military conflict, but the hearts and minds of its own population.

In a democracy, to be sure of public support for war, you need to remove any possible obstacle from within or you risk losing the hearts and minds campaign against your own population, thus forcing troops back home prematurely leading to another Vietnam. This is why I think it's important to ensure all possible legal grey areas need to be cleared up first on all fronts.

 

[Trotz]

There's probably a fact in that North Korea needs us as much as we need them. When I mean us, I don't necessarily mean us Canadians, but rather military lobbyists in the United States who don't want to see budget cuts and it's always convenient when there is a mad man in the Korean Peninsula that's shooting rockets at Japan and America.

I think that's just a fact of Empires in general, in that they need visible external enemies in order to maintain cohesion, less without external enemies, internal ones would be found.

 

[JLM]

The only reason I can see getting involved is where attrocities (Aushwitz style) are perpetrated against the citizens.

 

[Colpy]

To Five paradox and Colpie above. I agree with both of you to varying degrees. There can be no half-way. If it's going to be half-way, then we'd be better off waiting until we have the necessary support to ensure a full war. Making an official declaration of war like 5P suggested above would be one way to ensure full support. Bear in mind though that that alone, though certainly helpful, is not enough. After all, all it would take would be an election for it to all fall apart. Therefore we must be absolutely sure there will be minimal resistance. Making a formal and official declaration of war is definitely a must.

I think getting UN approval would be another must, as without that many would question the legality of it in international law, again risking a premature pullout come a following election year in Canada.

Combine approval from the UN General Assembly with a formal and offical declaration of war on Canada's part, and at least legalists, even if they don't support the war, would at least not oppose it either and simply remain neutral. With them out of the way, it's likely that:

1. We could shift all of our military resources towards fighting this war, and

2. Should it take more than four years or so (God forbid), with the legalists out of the way at least, it's also more likely to continue to maintain full public support election after election until the war is won, with minimal vacillation.

Without these points, people would naturally question if there are ulterior motives, hidden agendas, etc. and so with all the public criticism, governments would tend to be more secretive and excessively cautious, public support for the war weaker, and so the risk of failure or even withdrawal come a following election greater too. The last thing we'd need is another Vietnam, where the US lost not so much the military conflict, but the hearts and minds of its own population.

In a democracy, to be sure of public support for war, you need to remove any possible obstacle from within or you risk losing the hearts and minds campaign against your own population, thus forcing troops back home prematurely leading to another Vietnam. This is why I think it's important to ensure all possible legal grey areas need to be cleared up first on all fronts.

A couple of points.......

1. Forget the United Nations. China has a veto.

2. If the USA is fully on side, the war won't go 4 months...........in fact, it probably won't go 4 weeks. Unless the Chinese get involved.

3. (Before they start)....this is NOT Iraq. These people will be absolutely shell-shocked at being liberated, but there are no internal tribal hatreds to burst into full bloom at the first flush of freedom........the Koreans, north and south, are one people.

 

[ironsides]

If we go, it must be at S. Korea's request thru the UN, unless of course N. Korea launches anther unprovoked attack as they did in 1950 or even another 11/23/10. With Seoul being only 30 miles from N. Korea our reaction must be fast. I am sure we have all the information needed to blunt anything N. Korea may do.
(Swift Silent Deadly)

 

[Machjo]

Yeah, the United States certainty created more problems than it prevented. Things like backstabbing France and England during the Suez Crisis, toppling secular and modern despots in the Middle East and letting Religious-Fundamentalist (see stone-age tribesmen) take their place, et al.

The best thing we could had done in the Middle East would be to have annexed them back in the 1860s, last I check there weren't many people living in the Arabian Peninsula then (1 million at the most) and we could have turned that peninsula into another Australia. Oh well, I blame it on democracy and overall incompetencies it created within Anglo-Saxon administration.

I imagine the Chinese, with their 1.4 billion people, will not be so forgiving when it is their time to play Empire...!

This is why it would be a good idea to ensure it is UN-led or at least UN-approved. This would ensure no country could accuse Canada, the US, or other Western countries of empire-building. Especially with our imperial history, we need to be careful of foreign impressions of our actions abroad, since it could come back to haunt us. Image is everything. Just to take one example, one of the absolute biggest errors the US had done in the Chinese civil war was to back the Kuomintang. After two Opium Wars and the resultant stealing of Chinese lands, imposed extraterritoriality treaties from various countries, and Japanese occupation, the Chinese were so sick and tired of foreign intervention in their affairs that Mao Zedong, a genius when it came to hearts and minds campaigns, regardless of our opinions of him on any other front, seized on this and made sure to announce to the whole nation that the Kuomintang was receiving foreign aid. That news alone toppled the US-backed Kuomintang. And of course this also shows how the Kuomintang at the time really did not know the pulse of the nation. Had it, it would not have touched any foreign money with a ten-foot pole. And had the US known that sentiment, it would have been wiser for it to fund the Communist Party instead, hope it takes the bait (though I doubt it would have) and then announce it to the whole nation.

We mustn't underestimate hearts and minds campaigns, as they have often determined victory in modern war.

 

[ironsides]

Initiate a war, don't think it will happen, if N. Korea stays put this war talk will probably pass over till next time.

 

[Trotz]

A couple of points.......

2. If the USA is fully on side, the war won't go 4 months...........in fact, it probably won't go 4 weeks. Unless the Chinese get involved.

Sounds extremely optimistic, considering that Iraq had major internal divisions, was crippled by a 10 year embargo and had no advantageous terrain (i.e. it's flat) and still managed to last two weeks in combat and about 4-5 weeks overall (nevermind the insurgency...)

North Korea can mobilize 2 million soldiers, it's entire population has undergone military training at some point, tunnel networks (including undergound airbases) and caches exist, et al.
And the fact that most of the country is mountainous does make a huge difference as well.


It doesn't look particularly good for us, especially if you've been keeping with the news in Afghanistan, in that the Americans are having problems with old men in the mountains with rusted enfields. I hate to think of our successes going up against a Korean Dictator with 2 million soldiers, tanks appearing from behind our lines (tunnel networks), and at the same time our Generals would probably be too distracted with the chaos in Seoul.

 

[Machjo]

A couple of points.......

1. Forget the United Nations. China has a veto.

Precisely. While I disagree with any nation having a veto certainly, I also accept that that is currently the case, and to dis a superpower on North Korea's border would not be a good idea. After all, how would China respond to a sudden flood of refugees on its border? Or how would China respond if North Korea decides to nuke Seoul? Who knows. China could end up fighting on our side (after all, nuclear fallout from a North Korean attack won't be particularly discriminating, and China would not be too happy with such an ally), it could choose to remain neutral, or (especially if a refugee flood causes particular hardship for China), it could end up attacking the attackers not so much because it likes North Korea, but merely for its own self-interest. Though it's a highly unlikely scenario, it's not beyond possibility. After all, look at how Arizona's responding to Mexican illegals. Or what if China remains neutral with regards to the war, but ends up seriously abusing North Korean refugees, or adopts a shoot-to-kill policy regarding them? Again, not likely (after all, China is a calculating regime and will certainly consider the long-term future impact of its actions). But the fact that it's not likely doesn't mean it's not possible. Don't you think a good military strategist will try to eliminate such possible surprises, however unlikely they may be, to whatever degree is possible before going to war rather than merely reacting by the seat of his pants? What if China decides to adopt some kind of quasi-neutral stance whereby it allows South Korea to fight North Korea but decides to block SEATO access insisting that this is an internal Korean matter. You could imagine the confusion this would cause here. Then we'd have to decide whether to attack China or abandon our South Korean allies after they'd jumped into the war certain of allied support. China is a nuclear power too with a large army, let's not forget. Going to war with China would also mean Chinese refugees in Russia, Thailand, India, etc. creating more enemies. Should we not consider all these possibilities before engaging, by first making sure China is on board?

2. If the USA is fully on side, the war won't go 4 months...........in fact, it probably won't go 4 weeks. Unless the Chinese get involved.

Had that not been said of Iraq already, some might buy it. Do you really think the public will buy it the second time around? They'll be much more sceptical this time around seeing that the US was wrong on Iraq plus its debt is now much bigger than it was beofore the Iraq war, thus making the US government much more fiscally aware than it previously was. It is certainly more war shy than before now.

3. (Before they start)....this is NOT Iraq. These people will be absolutely shell-shocked at being liberated, but there are no internal tribal hatreds to burst into full bloom at the first flush of freedom........the Koreans, north and south, are one people.

Yet we had not thought of these things before Iraq, so what's to say we're not overlooking something this time around. While we can't avoid all surprises, by ensuring the world is onside, we'd at least be eliminating some possible sources of surprises plus building a larger base of support fro when surprises do occur. You seem to be suggesting that we go in on a plethora of assumptions. We did that with Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam. the Soviets did that with Afghanistan. We've been wrong so many times before, what makes you so sure you're right this time around? What's changed between then and now?

Personally, though I'm not totlaly opposed with war against North Korea, I'd say let's eliminate as many possible sources of surprises as possible before going in, not repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

[damngrumpy]

If we shuffle though the pages of history we will soon find we are in fact at war with
North Korea. The UN had an action there in the fifties, there was no resolution to the
conflict only a ceasefire and thus there is still a state of war technology. Should a such
a conflict erupt again it could have serious consequences for the world, as no one
at this point knows what China might do. Personally I believe we can deal with this in
a civilized manner because even China does not want a conflict over this State in
particular. The other major factor is the future of North Korea, Kim is not well and is
about to transfer power to his son, and God knows what happens after that. The army
may not support him, or the army may in fact decide to join the human race, as the
people of that country may well take matters into their own hands.
I think we have our hands full as it is without going about looking for new conflicts that
can be solved without war. The Middle East is still unstable and constitutes a severe
insurgency, that is costing a pile of money as with this type of conflict there is little if
any hope of military victory. We face other threats as well to world security. While
people go on without concern, the next Afghanistan is coming to life before our eyes in
Mexico and we are blind to the outcomes there as this nation will soon descend into chaos.
North Korea is a problem but not the most serious problem facing the world today.
Let us deal with the real problems in the world that create flareup zones. The real problems
facing the world, are poverty, hunger, the lack of meaningful employment, and a lack of
education. these problems lead to a feeling of hopelessness and desperate people do
desperate things, they back regimes like this who promise them anything that hungry
people will believe. I think when Kim is gone, the present regime will be trampled by the very
people who are being repressed right now. It will take time and turmoil but we don't need a
war to get insanity in North Korea under control.

 

[Machjo]

Initiate a war, don't think it will happen, if N. Korea stays put this war talk will probably pass over till next time.

Good point. Again, another reason we'd want to be standing on very firm ground morally and legally before we even consider attacking North Korea. If there is even so much as the impression that we overreacted, acted illegally or immorally, or that we had not exhausted all other options first, or that we dissed other countries, or any impression, real or not, of imperialism, we'll surely run into problems as governments become wary of all-out war, or wary of the next election, etc. thus increasing the chances of a Vietnam-like scenario. If we go to war, we must be sure all are on board to ensure success.

If we shuffle though the pages of history we will soon find we are in fact at war with
North Korea. The UN had an action there in the fifties, there was no resolution to the
conflict only a ceasefire and thus there is still a state of war technology. Should a such
a conflict erupt again it could have serious consequences for the world, as no one
at this point knows what China might do. Personally I believe we can deal with this in
a civilized manner because even China does not want a conflict over this State in
particular. The other major factor is the future of North Korea, Kim is not well and is
about to transfer power to his son, and God knows what happens after that. The army
may not support him, or the army may in fact decide to join the human race, as the
people of that country may well take matters into their own hands.
I think we have our hands full as it is without going about looking for new conflicts that
can be solved without war. The Middle East is still unstable and constitutes a severe
insurgency, that is costing a pile of money as with this type of conflict there is little if
any hope of military victory. We face other threats as well to world security. While
people go on without concern, the next Afghanistan is coming to life before our eyes in
Mexico and we are blind to the outcomes there as this nation will soon descend into chaos.
North Korea is a problem but not the most serious problem facing the world today.
Let us deal with the real problems in the world that create flareup zones. The real problems
facing the world, are poverty, hunger, the lack of meaningful employment, and a lack of
education. these problems lead to a feeling of hopelessness and desperate people do
desperate things, they back regimes like this who promise them anything that hungry
people will believe. I think when Kim is gone, the present regime will be trampled by the very
people who are being repressed right now. It will take time and turmoil but we don't need a
war to get insanity in North Korea under control.

All good points.

If we go, it must be at S. Korea's request thru the UN, unless of course N. Korea launches anther unprovoked attack as they did in 1950 or even another 11/23/10. With Seoul being only 30 miles from N. Korea our reaction must be fast. I am sure we have all the information needed to blunt anything N. Korea may do.
(Swift Silent Deadly)

An unprovoked attack from the North goes without saying. As I'd mentioned in the OP, if the North initiates the attack, then clearly the South is free to defend itself. So really this thread is all about an attack initiated from our side. If that is the case, then I fully agree that UN approval would be needed to as to quell possible opposition from legalists et al.

And with China so close by, you'd likely want it to be either UN or South-Korean-led so as to reassure China of no funny business going on near its borders.

 

[ironsides]

China is the big question, if it is a UN sanctioned they would have voted for it (I do not think they will miss that meeting like Russia did), if it is anything else we better have their ok or do something with them involved.

 

[Machjo]

China is the big question, if it is a UN sanctioned they would have voted for it (I do not think they will miss that meeting like Russia did), if it is anything else we better have their ok or do something with them involved.

Techniclaly, we don't need China to vote in favour of war. Even if it merely abstained, it would suffice as long as there is a majority vote at the General Assembly. Chinese abstention would essentially send the message that it does not agree with the idea but will still stand shoulder to sholder with the world if the world does decide to attack North Korea. That alone would be good enough as it would indicate China is on our side even if it doesn't fully agree with the war.