
Journal mercedo's Journal: Negative Peace 9
I received a lengthy reply from Japanese Slashdotter von_yosukeyan for the first time regarding his positions about nuclear utilisation in North Korea. Personally I don't know him, I just know he is much younger than I, in his mid twenties probably and he is one of the most intelligent Japanese Slashdot Users. He's educated in Kyoto judging from my previous reading. Here's a reply to his comment.
The reason is first off we have had no detente in history by holding nuclear weapons. -von_yosukeyan
I don't raise any questions as to your assertion. All right, but can't we say that you see we have had war in history by not holding nuclear weapons?
Even if North & South Korea held nuclear weapons, and even if we could achieve negative peace in the region, that does not lead to detente.
Don't you think that the negative peace is equal to detente?
The third point is that even if nuclear weapons kept a military balance in the peninsula, in fact military threat to the surrounding countries makes the balance of force in whole East Asia collapsed.
Very true. Good point.
East Asia Nations would fall into pessimistic situations of the incessant military expansions if the military expansion by North Korea, especially the holding of nuclear weapons were in reality.
For the first time in several months, I encountered very sober analysis as to the military circumstances in the region. Excellent, but the problem is North Korea already has two or three nuclear warheads, and of course in the South, the US forces have nuclear weapons. The fact is East Asia is already a nest of nuclear weapons. That is why I think current peace is the result of power politics. Negative peace is from point of view in peace and detente is from point of view in conflict, they are similar and enough for us all.
Wierd word usage (Score:2)
Secondly, you say of course in the South, the US forces have nuclear weapons. I do not think that is the case- after Hiroshima and Nagasaki we've got quite the fear of nuclear weapons in our military, and while I would think we have such weapons deployed in the area, I would expect them to be on offshore submarines, not with the border forces lent to South Korea. Land based short-range nucle
Re:Wierd word usage (Score:2, Informative)
I would expect them to be on offshore submarines, not with the border forces lent to South Korea
You are very correct, I mean in the South (South Korea), including offshore. And when it comes to Aegis cruiser, only US and Japan have the one.
Re:Wierd word usage (Score:2)
The sum of all fears (Score:2)
Re:The sum of all fears (Score:1)
Re:The sum of all fears (Score:2)
Obviously, the USA would have to send diplomats to China, to try to smooth over any ruffled feathers.
Re:Wierd word usage (Score:2, Informative)
I've mostly heard it used in the context of a nuclear detente. A cooling of relations between nations because they know everybody's fucked if things escalate too far.
I encountered the word playing Supremacy [boardgamegeek.com] in middle and high school.
Re:Wierd word usage (Score:1)
Re:Wierd word usage (Score:1)
This word describes the state of pasta which is neither exactly soft, nor exactly hard. This is very similar to the state of stalemate -detente, his comment was indeed deeply endorsed by his very wit.
the non-interference arrangement between Heaven and Hell.
The word I used detente turned to be more valuable than ever.