Yes. I completely agree. I actually have a lot more to add — but like you I’m sickened, I’m annoyed, the whole Republican opposition to it reeks of blatant xenophobia and short-sighted politicking.

You’re right about the costs: they’d be enormous. A war here wouldn’t advance the interests of either the US or me personally. That doesn’t mean that the wars would be unjust.

The ROK has plenty of plans for what to do about the fall of the DPRK, no matter when or how it is accomplished. The bigger issue is that no amount of planning is going to make the integration easy.

You wrote: Still, that’s where he and I amicably disagree: while it makes sense for him to avoid fighting that would inevitably kill millions of his voters, I think it’d be better in the long run for the world at large and Korea in particular if we could incite the North into starting a war which ended in its destruction.

A highly controversial assertion. Personally, I’d say another war with the North would be too costly in terms of blood and treasure for the North, ROK, and (if we get involved) the US. I get that you’re saying “in the long run,” but nevertheless, I’d say it’s better to overestimate than underestimate the costs of war, especially a state-to-state war with the DPRK. Even though the DPRK is poor, it’s got one of the largest armies in the world plus a highly militarized civilian population — if we do eventually fight Korean War II, it would probably be long and costly.

As for state policy, both ROK and China are extremely concerned about the prospect of unification largely because of the North’s population — unlike the situation with East/West German reunification, it would be extremely difficult for ROK to absorb the North’s huge, starving, extremely uneducated population. Unfortunately, based on a few articles I’ve read, it seems ROK doesn’t have a well-drawn-out plan for the question “What happens if the North falls?”

2. See 1.

3. I don’t have a proper answer to that question; I haven’t really evaluated his policies. You’re spot on as to the reason: they only affect me if he manages to start a war, and he’s got tremendous incentive to avoid one. So far, he’s succeeded. Still, that’s where he and I amicably disagree: while it makes sense for him to avoid fighting that would inevitably kill millions of his voters, I think it’d be better in the long run for the world at large and Korea in particular if we could incite the North into starting a war which ended in its destruction.

1. What books have you read? I’d probably also like to read them.
2. Have you read any new/recent books on NK, especially The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters, by B. R. Myers?

As for diplomacy: In general I’m a huge fan of diplomacy. But NK, I would assert — in addition to being the most totalitarian place on earth — is also the least diplomatic nation in the world (less than Burma, Sudan, or Iran). Given this, I’m inclined to agree with your realistic assessment of the situation on the Peninsula.

3. Do you think Pres. Lee Myung-bak’s policies are handling the situation properly? I presume you’d be more directly affected by the decisions of USFK and DOD, not ROK and State, but nevertheless — do you think your hosts are handling it properly?