who wants a united democratic korea?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
23 million mostly starving, poorly educated, racist dwarves sitting atop a ruined infrastructure is most certainly an economic downside for South Korea.

you're confusing opportunity with downside. S Koreans are very successful, no reason to think N koreans would be any different with the same opportunities.

Seriously, I wonder sometimes if people understand that the world isn't static; current conditions have little or nothing to do with future potential.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
you're confusing opportunity with downside. S Koreans are very successful, no reason to think N koreans would be any different with the same opportunities.
There is a possibility that N koreans will be just as successful as S koreans, eventually. However, instantly, that is impossible.

Seriously, I wonder sometimes if people understand that the world isn't static; current conditions have little or nothing to do with future potential.

Nobody is treating the world as being static. Nobody is questioning the possibility of North koreans becoming industrious. However, the time and money it will take to get them there will be incredible. You have to see that. The best example we have of this is how long it has taken East Germany to get up to snuff with West Germany.

If you combine with a country that has one of the shittiest economy and public facilities in the world, you can't expect that overnight they will provide your country with anything more than a massive debt in your bank account.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
There is a possibility that N koreans will be just as successful as S koreans, eventually. However, instantly, that is impossible.



Nobody is treating the world as being static. Nobody is questioning the possibility of North koreans becoming industrious. However, the time and money it will take to get them there will be incredible. You have to see that. The best example we have of this is how long it has taken East Germany to get up to snuff with West Germany.

If you combine with a country that has one of the shittiest economy and public facilities in the world, you can't expect that overnight they will provide your country with anything more than a massive debt in your bank account.

the process of incorporating the Germanys led to Germany being hugely successful.

My point about people seeing the world as static is, they look at N Korea as it is today and assume that's how it would be. That isn't what would happen.

Japan and Europe after WW2 were much much worse off than N Korea, all it took to change that was some money and a can do spirit. Not all this stupid pessimism.
 
Last edited:

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
the process of incorporating the Germanys led to Germany being hugely successful.

My point about people seeing the world as static is, they look at N Korea as it is today and assume that's how it would be. That isn't what would happen.

I don't think that is what we are doing at all. We are looking at the world and saying "Ok, it would take a very large effort to make these guys productive."

Do you disagree with that? We aren't saying they can't, won't, or never can be productive, we are saying "It will take a large effort to make them productive."
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
Japan and Europe after WW2 were much much worse off than N Korea, all it took to change that was some money and a can do spirit. Not all this stupid pessimism.

It took Japan 15 years and a crap load of aid from the US before its economy started to boom.

As for "Europe", that's sort of ambigous isn't it? There are lots of countries in Europe, some have done awesome, others have barely maintained the status of "first world country".
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
It took Japan 15 years and a crap load of aid from the US before its economy started to boom.

As for "Europe", that's sort of ambigous isn't it? There are lots of countries in Europe, some have done awesome, others have barely maintained the status of "first world country".

Europe is not ambigous. It's a continent. I don't know what countries you are talking about, but the ones who followed our lead, like S Korea did, all did well.

And Japan's economy was growing much sooner than 15 years, where'd you come up with that ?
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
3
81
Why we gave back so much land to the North Koreans is beyond me. Most of the issues we have with North Korea could have been shrunk if we didn't give them so much freaking land. I realize that it would have been dicey to wipe them out all together, a war with china was the last thing anyone wanted.

You seem to have realized your mistake in other posts, but I was going to say we did try to wipe them out and we went to war with china... and we didn't really choose to give them so much land.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I get the distinct impression that S Korea would willingly shoulder the burden of integrating their northern cousins if a peaceful opportunity presents itself. It's not just about money, but about national pride & a sense of destiny.

That price would be quite small compared to that paid by the Vietnamese, for example.

Should reunification occur, American troops likely wouldn't stay long in Korea after being asked politely to leave, which I'm sure would happen if China were playing nice. It'd be a real "Mission Accomplished".
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The politics of the parties involved such as the Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians, and the USA, not to mention the Koreans are very complicated. At one point the USA made a deal with the Japan where Japan got to colonize Korea and then the USA got to take possession of the philipines. It was all rather complicated and convoluted. No one at that point could have guessed about just how brutally the Japanese would treat the Koreans.

http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/korea/history/colonial_period.htm

Korean Historical Drama
http://www.hulu.com/watch/200491/jejoongwon-episode-1#x-0,vepisode,1,0


My wife is Korean and her relatives on her father's side came from North Korea originally. They fled south before the civil war started. The Russians spread their Marxism and communism when they tried to take over and the Chinese spread their communism when they tried to take over. It could have easily escalated to a third world war.
 
Last edited:

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
North Korea is their version of Alaska. Mostly mountains with horrible winters and everybody crammed onto what little flat land is available, but containing the bulk of their natural resources. The only real question is how fast they can develop the necessary infrastructure to exploit those resources and how expensive it would be. Inevitably it will become worth their while.
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
you're confusing opportunity with downside. S Koreans are very successful, no reason to think N koreans would be any different with the same opportunities.

Seriously, I wonder sometimes if people understand that the world isn't static; current conditions have little or nothing to do with future potential.

I dont think you understand exactly the level of mindfuck North Korea has gone through, nevermind entire generations that are physically AND mentally stunted due to poor nutrition/starvation.

And this is excluding the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of political prisoners in camps across North Korea.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
Europe is not ambigous. It's a continent. I don't know what countries you are talking about, but the ones who followed our lead, like S Korea did, all did well.
Not all countries in Europe did or are doing well.

Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, to name a few. Heck, while many of the European countries are doing fine now, it took most of them about 15 years to get back on their feat after WWII.

And Japan's economy was growing much sooner than 15 years, where'd you come up with that ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan
Their boom started in 1960. WWII ended in 1945. Yes, they where growing from 1945->1960 (Its sort of hard not to grow, they had nothing) but it wasn't really excelling until the 1960s.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I get the distinct impression that S Korea would willingly shoulder the burden of integrating their northern cousins if a peaceful opportunity presents itself. It's not just about money, but about national pride & a sense of destiny.

That price would be quite small compared to that paid by the Vietnamese, for example.

Should reunification occur, American troops likely wouldn't stay long in Korea after being asked politely to leave, which I'm sure would happen if China were playing nice. It'd be a real "Mission Accomplished".

The national security implications alone are worth it for South Korea. I mean how do you put a price on Seoul no longer being under threat of annihilation? There is none.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
The national security implications alone are worth it for South Korea. I mean how do you put a price on Seoul no longer being under threat of annihilation? There is none.

The thing is, if there was a peaceful solution available, the threat of NK shooting into seoul would no longer exist.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
The national security implications alone are worth it for South Korea. I mean how do you put a price on Seoul no longer being under threat of annihilation? There is none.

The fear of Seoul being annihilated is a bonus for the US. Its a reason to have a base over there, and that spreads American influence. Im sure if the US did not really care to have a base there that the two Koreas could work something out, but that is not in the US's interest since it would lead to losing the base in S.Korea.

Its better to keep Korea divided and a base in the South as a "check" against the Chinese than it is to unite Korea and lose that bargaining chip against China [the chip is the US base].
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
South Koreans are emotional and stupid enough to absorb their brethren in the North at the detriment of their economy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
you're confusing opportunity with downside. S Koreans are very successful, no reason to think N koreans would be any different with the same opportunities.

Seriously, I wonder sometimes if people understand that the world isn't static; current conditions have little or nothing to do with future potential.

Nobody's saying that North Korea couldn't eventually contribute. It would take a large amount of work and investment in order to make that happen, and that's a downside.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Not all countries in Europe did or are doing well.

Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, to name a few. Heck, while many of the European countries are doing fine now, it took most of them about 15 years to get back on their feat after WWII.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan
Their boom started in 1960. WWII ended in 1945. Yes, they where growing from 1945->1960 (Its sort of hard not to grow, they had nothing) but it wasn't really excelling until the 1960s.

Countries behind the Iron Curtain of course didnt grow as well, that's irrelevant to N Korea reuniting with S Korea.

And what is relevant about Japan's growth is when they became self-sufficient which did not take 15 years. And that Wikipedia article doesnt addresswhat happened after the war so it's not a good resource.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Nobody's saying that North Korea couldn't eventually contribute. It would take a large amount of work and investment in order to make that happen, and that's a downside.

no it isn't. like I said before it's an opportunity. What you are saying is like saying the downside to the Louisiana purchase is people would have to move there and do work to realize the potential.

That isnt a downside, it's the process of growth.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The fear of Seoul being annihilated is a bonus for the US. Its a reason to have a base over there, and that spreads American influence. Im sure if the US did not really care to have a base there that the two Koreas could work something out, but that is not in the US's interest since it would lead to losing the base in S.Korea.

Its better to keep Korea divided and a base in the South as a "check" against the Chinese than it is to unite Korea and lose that bargaining chip against China [the chip is the US base].
Bases in SK would be for security w/ respect to China and potentially Russia.

Why do we have bases in Japan? For the same reason as there would still be in Korea.

To deliberately keep Korea divided allows the possibility of a spark that will create a large confrontation. Remove all tinder and then any spark has no fuel.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
no it isn't. like I said before it's an opportunity. What you are saying is like saying the downside to the Louisiana purchase is people would have to move there and do work to realize the potential.

That isnt a downside, it's the process of growth.

Do you know what a downside is? It's a negative effect. South Korea having less money and an unstable population within it is a negative effect. It doesn't mean that it will always be a negative effect, but the results are absolutely negative in the short term.

The situation in North Korea is so bad that it is likely to be substantially negative for quite some time going forward, and so it is absolutely rational for the South Koreans to be reluctant to take that on. As I pointed out earlier, the terms of any reunification would likely involve changes to South Korean governance and society that they may be unwilling to accept.
 

Ape

Golden Member
Jul 29, 2000
1,088
0
71
It's their countries it entirely up to them. Based on how far apart they are politically today only a civil war would join these two nations.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
It's their countries it entirely up to them. Based on how far apart they are politically today only a civil war would join these two nations.

That's pretty much certainly untrue. It's possible that the North may provoke some sort of confrontation to stave off internal collapse, but there are tons of scenarios that would lead to reunification without a civil war.
 

Ape

Golden Member
Jul 29, 2000
1,088
0
71
That's pretty much certainly untrue. It's possible that the North may provoke some sort of confrontation to stave off internal collapse, but there are tons of scenarios that would lead to reunification without a civil war.

You may know more about that part of the world than I do so I'll take your word for it. Though to me both sides coming together without bloodshed seems unlikely but stranger things have happened.