[notastartup]

1994, Clinton administration was prepared to launch an invasion into North Korea but was stopped by Jimmy Carter cutting a deal with North Korea and also the South Korean president at the time opposed Seoul becoming shelled with North Korean rockets and artillery shells.

The opposition comes mainly from South Koreans themselves, they do not want a war, they rather enjoy the status quo and look the other way when their own countrymen on the other side of border are getting massacred. Economy is more important in this mindset.

North Korea sinks a South Korean ships and kills 50 sailors and then proceeds to shell an island. South Korea's response is to do absolutely nothing but look to United States for "what do we do now" because their capital is in the artillery firing range of North Korea. The difference is that this time South Korean president Lee Myung Bak ordered airstrike but the South Korean air force generals replied by saying they need American permission, essentially suggesting South Korean president is not really in charge of it's own military in the time of need.

It seems like whenever South Korea doesn't want to take action on North, United States is willing. When United States is unwilling, South Korea is willing. A stark reminder that two countries, although an alliance forged with blood spilled during the Korean War, cannot share the same national interests because in the end, they are two different countries, with different culture and perspective.

If you are not willing to pay the price for reunification now, you certainly won't be able to reap the benefits of a reunification when it inevitably happens.

[milhous]

As a US-born Korean, American interventionism really bothers me. As others have discussed what happens when America tries to "make the world safe for democracy", the South Korean people and its government should be the sole arbiters of how they want to deal with these problems, instead of waiting to get a permission slip from Washington. There should be only one military force in South Korea, a South Korean military, under the command of the South Korean president.

I don't think it would be so bad. Both countries would still remain allies, and South Korea would still be under the US nuclear umbrella. The hope is that there wouldn't be any of this embarrassing vacillation in policy you just described.

[barry-cotter]

Both countries would still remain allies, and South Korea would still be under the US nuclear umbrella.

Yeah,the US would totally be willing to launch nuclear weapons on behalf of the remains of South Korea.

I fail to see why you place such trust in the good intentions of the US if one of its protectorates tells it to fuck off.

[notastartup]

Question, Russia and China threatens to Nuke South Korea and United States too if it interferes. South Korea gets nuked first. Does United States head down towards mutually assured destruction over a country smaller than the size of Minnesota? I think that it's a nuclear umbrella with large holes in it.

[barry-cotter]

I agree with you. That's why the US troops are still in South Korea. South Korea is perfectly capable of defending itself but if there are no US troops to die in the first strike the US can do the sensible thing. But with them there North Korea soon becomes former North Korea.

And South Korea has slightly fewer people than France. It's not Minnesota.