RANT.it's politics. you probably wouldn't want to read it. i suggest you dont.

[disclaimer]:I don't know enough about international politics and north and south korea, to say nothing of this current incident, to say confidently that my opinions are of any relevance or use... i just felt like i had to write for myself... there's so much going on in my head, so many things to EXPLAIN, so there probably wont be much depth to this.. it's just for me to read and rethink and remember, so that when i read over it again, i can invoke the thoughts i'm havin in my head.

[I'm probably gonna edit this many times over as more information becomes available... and I think things through more....]

-----------------------11/30
CNN OPINION article. pretty good. 나랑같은 생각하시는 분~

read below, or go to the actual article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/29/romberg.korea.exercises/index.html

U.S. and S. Korea navies send a message
By Alan D. Romberg, Special to CNNNovember 29, 2010 10:17 a.m. EST

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• The U.S. and South Korea are conducting naval exercises in the Yellow Sea
• Alan Romberg says these are a message to North Korea that it could provoke retaliation
• He says incidents of North Korean aggression have so far met with little military response
• U.S. also wants to demonstrate its freedom to project power in international waters, he says

Washington (CNN) -- The current large-scale U.S.-South Korean naval exercise off the west coast of Korea has multiple purposes. After last week's North Korean attack on a South Korean island, the most important is to send a message to Pyongyang that Washington and Seoul have the capability -- and the will -- to respond with devastating force to any further acts of aggression.

A second is to strengthen the U.S.-ROK (Republic of Korea) joint capability to coordinate such a response, as well as to reinforce their anti-submarine capabilities that were so obviously inadequate last March, when North Korea torpedoed a South Korean naval vessel on the high seas.

In light of the fact that past North Korean misbehavior has not produced serious consequences for Pyongyang, it may be difficult to convince the North that "this time we're serious." There was a South Korean artillery response to the shelling last week, but it was apparently flawed in execution and did not produce much damage.

What is needed is to credibly promise a harsh response to future attacks, yet not trigger North Korean escalation or a preemptive war on the assumption that an effort to destroy the North is looming.

Despite its labeling the current situation an "ultra-emergency wartime situation," the North Korean regime is not suicidal, and one ought not assume it will take actions that will predictably bring destruction down on its head. But its apparent and dangerous belief that it can act with impunity has been reinforced over many years. It comes not only from the measured South Korean response after the ship sinking, and from the absence of truly punishing actions after it reneged on commitments not to test intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

Even assassination attempts against South Korean presidents and the blowing up of a civilian Korean airliner in years past produced little by way of lasting consequences for the North.

Fear of precipitating a second Korean War has proved an effective deterrent against strong U.S.-ROK retaliation. This time, Washington and Seoul seem determined not only to demonstrate the resolve to strike back (albeit proportionately) if necessary, but to strengthen existing UN-sponsored sanctions against the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) that will effectively curtail the North's illicit activities as well as squeeze individuals in the elite structure.

Another dimension of the current exercises, which include the aircraft carrier George Washington and its strike group, is to demonstrate to China that, its strident objections to naval operations in the Yellow Sea notwithstanding, the United States not only has the right to operate in international waters but will do so in defense of its national interests.

The point is not to stick a finger in China's eye; Washington would far prefer to cooperate with Beijing than to appear to challenge it in order to change North Korean behavior.

But the U.S. has argued to China for a long time -- to little effect -- that its coddling of Pyongyang was not producing better behavior. Rather, it was enabling the North to pursue its contrarian ways, producing stalemate in the nuclear talks, the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, and now a calculated attack on a South Korean island that killed civilians as well as military personnel.

Thus, the American message to Beijing is: "If you cannot help bring North Korea to cease its provocative behavior, we will be forced to take actions that, while not aimed at you, will discomfit you." If this leads China to more seriously strive to rein North Korea in, all the better.

Moreover, China shrilly insisted a few months ago that no U.S. naval exercises should take place in the Yellow Sea -- and especially that no aircraft carrier should enter those waters. In the face of that position, at some point the U.S. had to exercise its freedom of navigation rights. But the choice of timing -- not ideal with a Chinese state visit to Washington planned for January -- was dictated by Pyongyang's actions.

Some observers say the only way to change North Korean behavior is to engage it. In fact, the United States is quite willing to engage the North, including in serious negotiations.

But it is not willing to look the other way in the face of Pyongyang's aggressive military behavior and its blatant violation of its most basic pledges and UN resolutions regarding denuclearization. And it is not willing, as the North appears to want, to accept the DPRK as a de facto nuclear weapons state by sitting down with Pyongyang absent a demonstration by the North that it is committed to denuclearize (even if doubts abound regarding implementation).

If the North does something meaningful to lower tensions with the South and to demonstrate "sincerity" about abandoning nuclear weapons, the prospects for resumed six-party denuclearization talks will improve. Meanwhile, however, the United States will continue to show strong support for its South Korean ally to counter Pyongyang's threatening actions.

{The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Alan D. Romberg.}

 
----------------------11/23
North Korea's started bombing on South Korea...

this may really shift the world into rage

as it is not simply an issue dealing with the split peninsula,
but as the G20 Summit was recently held in South Korea,
it may (intentionally or unintentionally) be seen as a threat to the top 20 economic powers of the world.
Many of those from the international community are still in the South, ministers, amabassadors, vendors...

The South is actively beseeching the United States for nuclear arms as a deterrent, as it has currently been reported that the North has active uranium enrichment programs and quite possibly (rather probably) nuclear arms.

There is no question that North Korea has enough military arms to bomb itself and the rest of the peninsula, to say nothing of the continent, into an inferno.

I wonder if the U.S. and U.N. would allow the South to have even that minimal defense, as nuclear weapons were banned from the peninsula in 1991...

It's going to drive the leaders of the six-party talks crazy, as they have to weigh and measure the gains and losses, and consequences of each and every move... as it seems North Korea is trying to force America into having bilateral talks.

For one, if the South is given nuclear arms for it's own 'defense' (deterrence, as I said before, rather than for actual use), then North Korea will take a harder line with the U.S. as well as those who are a part of the talks.

China is already playing mediator between the split Koreas, negotiating as best it can. However, in this situation, it will be stuck in checkmate position. If tensions increase, China may finally be placed in a situation where it must choose either to side with it's long-time political brother or with the modern day "peace-keeping" democratic allies / economic bases.

If the U.S. will not place nuclear arms in the South, South Korea may pursue a split from U.N. charters and try to untangle its way out of the North's chokehold. Though it may be logical to wait on the international community to shun, sanction, and chastice the North's military and leadership, the South Korean government may not be able to do so.

Knowing how cohesive and explosive the Korean people can be, I see the masses as entirely capable of running over the current government and driving out its elected leaders once they feel insecure. As it is most important for a governemnt to maintain its people's trust, if the allies do not think up a tactical move or come to decide that they do not want to give to North Korea in any way, the South Korean government will have to make some drastic changes.

This really worries me.

I have all my relatives in Korea. I have many friends in Korea. I have numerous friends in the army... One just started his service yesterday.

but on a larger scale, the amount of hate and tension that will build up in that tiny peninsula..... the increasing body count this issue may cause, and the amount of suffering that, more so, the north korean people will have to go through really puts me at unease.

Please, U.S. do NOT decide on " Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions..." you KNOW North Korea would rather choose to do opposite what is required of them than to be pushed around by threats of food shortages and impoverished citizens. It's been there, done that, seen that the international community will not lie around to watch thousands of people die of hunger ...

God, please please please give us wisdom.

Korea, cohesively, needs prayer.

The end times are near at hand...

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1