Tyndmyr wrote:My read on the situation is that the president considers it an acceptable tradeoff for peace and isn't willing to rock the boat over it as a result. Therefore, the appearances are not critical.
What's your read on it?
It's nice how you keep walking back on your statements. First it was "They encouraged it", now it's "they just don't want to rock the boat". The latter is true, but it's not what you initially claimed, and isn't supported by your own sources. You seem to be unable to say "Oh yeah, my bad". That's my read on it.
CorruptUser wrote: Zohar wrote:
the totally-not-boneheadedly-located-within-spitting-distance-of-the-border SK capitol
You've made this assumption before, that it's totally reasonable to just relocate 25 million people to somewhere else in Korea, and that it's a much better idea to be in, say, Busan than in Seoul. In reality that expectation is entirely bonkers and would probably ruin the South Korean economy entirely, and the distance from, let's say, Pyongyang to Busan is 500 kilometers, easily covered by 60 year old land-to-land rockets, and that SK had clearly demonstrated being able to fire to before. This massive forced relocation plan you imagine in your head won't even help with anything.
1) Seoul had a very small population relative to today prior to the war
2) The city itself was razed a couple times during the war
3) Nothing is out of range of long-range rockets, but Seoul is within artillery
range of NK. Rockets take out specific targets, artillery raze everything to the ground
4) The SK government already
has plans to move the capitol to the Gongju area for safety reasons, but is struggling to do so due to, well, politics; the first departments to relocate are the first departments to lose connections with the rest of government.
1. It also had a much smaller economy and infrastructure to support such a move, I imagine. Also, population in the city itself in 1950 was over a million
. The population today is about 10 million. Assuming the metro area then was 2.5 times the city proper, as it is today, that would still mean relocating 2.5 million people, a ridiculously astounding task. And the population not too long after the war, in 1955, was already 1.5 million.
2. A razed city doesn't mean the population is suddenly gone. People were back in Hiroshima and Nagasaki days after their bombings. See population in 1955.
3. Rockets armed with nuclear warheads, which is what we're talking about here, are better at razing everything to the ground than artillery.
4. Moving the capital doesn't mean relocating the people, it means moving government buildings. Of course other people will move as well, but I assure you millions will stay in Seoul and it will not be abandoned. And I doubt anyone in SK expects that to happen, either.