HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - It's on...
Thread: It's on...
View Single Post
Old 06-11-2018, 07:47 AM
  #4  
Alsatian
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,332
Default

Originally Posted by cr422 View Post
That could be a start.

Reunification is not going to happen for a long, long time. As I have mentioned before, North Korea, not China, not Russia, invaded, and devastated, South Korea. It's not something that gets publicized, but when you talk with South Koreans, there is considerable hostility towards the North. It's probably not as bad now, but there was a time when North Koreans who managed to sneak across the border would pretend they were born in South Korea.
I have a dissenting opinion. Hopefully I express my dissent respectfully and avoid giving offense. That is not my intention. Also, as a caveat, this is just my opinion and I have been wrong before.

I think the main obstacle to the North reuniting with the South is not animosity between the peoples of North Korea and South Korea. I think the obstacle is that the regime in the North would lose its prerogatives and possibly even be persecuted in the aftermath of union. Thus, the regime in North Korea would be committing suicide to countenance reunification. There are plenty of people in South Korea who have family members who were stuck in the North after the truce was initiated. They really want to be reunited. More than many other peoples, Koreans are culturally distinct and hence ought to be united. Their language is distinct. Their culture and history are distinct.

Having said that, I do agree reunification is not going to happen any time soon, although that is a tragedy. Notwithstanding, reunification WILL happen in the future. How can I say this with such certainty? Because it is destined by the inherent cultural unity of Korea.

What will Trump angle for in these talks? I don't know. Let's wait and see. I think Trump walking away with no progress is NOT the worst thing that could happen. If that happened -- nothing accomplished by the meeting -- that could provide justification for applying further pressure on the North, that could provide justification for some other substantive action on the part of the US. I don't know what form such "substantive action" could take, but robust military action may be a substantive action. Is that wise? I am in no good position to evaluate that. I will point out from Machiavelli's "The Prince" Chapter III: "The Romans never allowed disorders to increase in order to avoid a war; for they knew that war is not to be avoided, and can be deferred only to the advantage of the other side." We know of things in our own recent history that agree with the wisdom of this insight. To their detriment, France and England "allowed disorders to increase in order to avoid a war" during the rise of Hitler. All that accomplished was to contribute to the advantage of the other side.

Last edited by Alsatian; 06-11-2018 at 07:50 AM.
Alsatian is offline