SEOUL, Oct 2 (Reuters) - South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol ordered on Wednesday military aircraft to be deployed immediately to evacuate its citizens from Israel and other parts of the Middle East amid escalating tension, his office said.

Earlier on Wednesday, South Korea’s foreign ministry urged its citizens in Israel and Lebanon to immediately leave by any means available.

  • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
    61·
    2 months ago

    They already sold a fair bit of munitions from their stockpile to Russia. At least some of which Ukraine then blew up in their recent ammo depot attacks.

    I don’t know how much they have left, but my guess is that North Korea is probably in a worse place to attack South Korea than they have been for a while.

    Also, while North Korea does hold a strong deterrence ability over South Korea in that they can cause a lot of damage with artillery to Seoul, the flip side of that is that they’d be starting a war that they’d lose.

    From past reading, I believe that estimates are that it’d take us and South Korea days, but less than a week, to knock out North Korean artillery near the border. In that time, they’d cause horrendous damage. But then they’re in a really bad place. They don’t really have a route to militarily take over South Korea. All it’d mean is a horribly-damaging war for them.

    • kautau@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      Except

      In 1961, the two countries signed the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty, whereby China pledged to immediately render military and other assistance by all means to its ally against any outside attack. This agreement was renewed in 1981, 2001 and 2021.

      So that would basically be the start of WWIII

      • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        Article 6 of the treaty requires North Korea to commit to only peaceful reunification with South Korea. They’re in violation of the treaty if they try to forcibly annex South Korea, and China doesn’t then hold obligation to aid them against attack.

        • kautau@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Unlike the top commenter, I don’t think think NK will do anything if SK flies jets from the Middle East out of there. I’m purely responding to you claiming that China would stay out of the war.

          Article 6 only states

          The Contracting Parties hold that the unification of Korea must be realized along peaceful and democratic lines and that such a solution accords exactly with the national interests of the Korean people and the aim of preserving peace in the Far East.

          China is itching for war and for someone else to start it. There’s a reason they are constantly provoking Filipino ships and the like. The US is a young country, and war is a business to us with how capitalism and war-as-profit has developed. On the other hand, China as exists now was chartered in 1949, and is looking to prove itself as a superpower.

          If North Korea makes a military move for pretty much any reason, they will specifically not say it is for the reunification of Korea and rather the defense of their nation, which gives China perfect legal grounds on that loose charter to participate.

          • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            If China wants a war with the US – which I doubt, seeing as they haven’t started one by now and Taiwan would be a better reason for them to do so – they don’t need a treaty to have one. They can just go kick one off. The treaty just means that:

            • They have an obligation to act.

            • It provides grounds under the UN rules to act legally. But, end of the day, that only really matters to the degree that it affects what other countries do. And in this context, that probably mostly means the US anyway.

            If you look at Hong Kong, China just told the UK to get out or they’d take it. They didn’t have a legal basis for that. I don’t expect that a piece of paper would be a huge obstacle to involving themselves in Korea if they were willing to have a war over it.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong

            During talks with Thatcher, China planned to seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that “I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon”, to which she replied that “there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like”.

            There’s a reason they are constantly provoking Filipino ships and the like

            I don’t think that that indicates a desire for war. China has had outright hostilities over the islands before, with Vietnam, and China didn’t aim to convert it into broader war. I think – though I don’t follow the South China Sea situation much – that China’s aim in the South China Sea is to maintain a level of friction high enough that it’s painful for the countries to maintain a claim over those islands. At some point, the country either de facto or de jure cedes the territory and China keeps it.

            EDIT: There’s the Vietnam instance, where they brought friction up to a level of conflict, grabbed de facto control, but didn’t initiate a broader war:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands

            • kautau@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              1 month ago

              Excellent points. I don’t think China wants a war with the US directly. And I do think I was just saying China and generalizing as well, as some of the party wants war and some don’t; But I still will maintain that they won’t start a war because that puts them into a situation as the aggressor, specifically to their people, but if their propaganda machine can spin it better if they join a war it’s much better.