Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
North Korea, hypothetical situation and Buddhist response
karasti
BreathingMinnesota Moderator
As most of the world knows, North Korea's regime continues to threaten to bomb the US. Let's say, at some point, they do. What do you think would be the proper response to that type of aggression from a Buddhist point of view? The Pentagon said today they are going to scale back their push to military response because they don't want to aggravate the situation and would prefer to resolve the situation diplomatically. But what if it doesn't work? What if they send a missile to South Korea or the US (or anywhere) that has nuclear weapons attached? How does a Buddhist respond to such a situation as a crazed dictator?
I'm not sure what I think the best response is. I think avoiding attacking is the best route of course. But if they attack first, then what? Back down and let them remain a threat to other countries? Do nothing about them killing who knows how many people?
I still think it's typical bluster, like a bear who huffs and paws at you but really isn't about to attack. But I can't imagine the change in the world if they did, and what the right response would be.
I know thinking about the future isn't what we should do, especially in such a "what if" situation, but sometimes I can't help it, lol. I should restate that, what do you as a Buddhist or future Buddhist, think is the best answer? Obviously there is probably no one, single, Buddhist answer.
I'm not sure what I think the best response is. I think avoiding attacking is the best route of course. But if they attack first, then what? Back down and let them remain a threat to other countries? Do nothing about them killing who knows how many people?
I still think it's typical bluster, like a bear who huffs and paws at you but really isn't about to attack. But I can't imagine the change in the world if they did, and what the right response would be.
I know thinking about the future isn't what we should do, especially in such a "what if" situation, but sometimes I can't help it, lol. I should restate that, what do you as a Buddhist or future Buddhist, think is the best answer? Obviously there is probably no one, single, Buddhist answer.
0
Comments
I would have to go along with the most likely response which would be to bomb their infrastructure and military into oblivion. Hopefully with conventional weapons.
Like the US did in Iraq but on a bigger scale and with good reason this time.
Massive civilian casualties for sure. But if they launch the first attack what choice would there be?
Edit- of course that would presume the Chinese cooperating with the plan.
As for an answer to the question, I really could not say as it would be a bad whatever you would do. I know that North Korea hates the US more than South Korea, I have a friend who from South Korea and she even would like the North and South to rejoin, after all it was the US who split them apart in the first place. But I advise people to watch this link when they have the time.
I wonder what the current president of S. Korea's stance is on all this. From what I heard from my S Korean friends, the previous president was more or less itching for an excuse to bomb the DPRK off the map. I really hope it's still not the case, because if it is, I think we should be worried about S Korea's response as well.
One would hope that if Buddhists were involved in such decisions that their thinking would be informed by compassion and wisdom.
Unfortunately because many western Buddhists embrace the counter-culture they put themselves out of much of the decision making process, and hold up banners instead.
It is to be hoped that over several generations this will change.
Karma means actions have consequences. Karma applies to North Korea as well as you and I. The consequences of them actually attacking the US would be catastrophic for them. It wouldn't do us any good, either.
So the Buddhist response really can only be how you and I and other Buddhists respond. Deplore the loss of life on all sides and don't get caught up in hate for the "North Koreans" because they're held hostage to an Imperial style government insane enough to do such a thing.
Few people come to the final conclusion that these windmills are imaginary, that one can remove them by not endowing them with strength and importance. That we can open our hearts without fear and gently, gradually let go of our preconceived notions and opinions, views and ideas, suppressions and conditioned responses. When all that is removed, what does one have left? A large, open space, which one can fill with whatever one likes. If one has good sense, one will fill it with love, compassion and equanimity. Then there is nothing left to fight. Only joy and peacefulness remain, which cannot be found outside of oneself. It is quite impossible to take anything from outside and put it into oneself. There is no opening in us through which peace can enter. We have to start within and work outward. Unless that becomes clear to us, we will always find another crusade.
Ayya Khema
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/all-of-us/allus05.htm
I haven't quite worked through that.
I suppose it's possible to consider it in the light of how the way we live might unintentionally support some of the nation's bad doings (think buying gas for the car, taxes being used to pay for military action, etc) but I always understood that intention was an important factor in the amount of karma we amass. The idea of a national karma would leave out individual intention.
Maybe supporting a revolution would be the best option? Allow the people to carry out the overthrow of their ruling class in their own way and organize government as they choose.
I enjoy the discussion about national karma as well. I don't know how I feel about it. I agree with @vinlyn that it becomes pretty difficult to consider that every citizen who happens to live in the country becomes "guilty" or responsible for the karma accrued by it's leaders decisions and actions. I find it hard to accept the idea that karma applies to borders. Are the people who voted against the office holder still karmically responsible for his actions? Is a person who has the means to move more karmically responsible for the countries actions than a person who does not have the means to move?
We can't control what other people do, or how they think. We only have control over our own thoughts, decisions and actions. We live as individuals in a government-run society and we have only a very tiny say (an election vote for; financial support; protests against) as individuals in the things that are done.
Of course, a group of individuals can get together and work to change existing laws and/or policies we don't agree with... even with the best, purest intentions and All Righteousness and Might on our side, that doesn't mean we won't fail to change things we want to change.
It still comes back to we are only responsible for our OWN actions.
Last time I checked, no politician in DC or the state government has asked my opinion or permission before doing whatever the heck they want to. So if in spite of my votes and voice and desires our government goes to war, does that mean I share our nation's karma?
I'll have to think about it a bit. I guess, like I said, it depends on what you mean by karma.
The more I think about it, the more I think it not only doesn't make sense but is just plain impossible. What would be the point to live the best life you can, only to find yourself suffering the effects of karma of a president who made bad choices when you were 4 years old? Or the choices of someone you didn't elect and didn't support? I suppose if you elect someone and support a war they start, then you might have some karmic responsibility for supporting the war, again depending exactly how karma works (which none of us know). But if where we live and what is going on with people around us that we never have any interaction with affects our karma, what is the point of trying to live a good life? You'd be screwed from the get-go by all the people around you.
But at some point, someone said, "Who ever said karma was fair?"
Many tens of thousands of people would die, but perhaps in the medium term - 10 years or so, - more lives would be saved. With a government change it would mean an end to the concentration camps (population 150,000 to 200,000) and an end to malnutrition in some of the rural areas...
I'm not recommending it, just putting it out there as a possibility.
Compassion from a bomb. huh.
Since our adversary is the DPRK it's hard to know much. We can mostly only go by what we are told, since we can't easily get their side. Dennis Rodman seems to think Un is a-okay! Who knows for any given instance of attack and war how much truth we are told versus propaganda from our own government in order to get us to support a war/attack. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, I'm just saying, who knows what the truth really is in any of these instances.
Indeed, if North Korea nukes someone I'd have to wonder if it would have made a difference to try something different
But no, it is a slippery slope to say "Bomb them and destroy the regime, it'll be good for them in the long run."
Just like a father giving a child a good thrashing when the kid does something bad.
It's an uncool and clumsy way of doing things.
There has to be a better way, surely.
Any entity (atta/"thing") is subjected to kamma. This include nations and all its sub-components.
North Korea is "at the point of self-implosion". But I've been hearing that for well over a decade. So where is the implosion?
"It is dirt poor". Yes, the common people are dirt poor, but the military establishment ("with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on earth") doesn't seem quite so poor.
"Since when is it a threat to the US?" Since it got some nuclear weapons and constantly says it will actually use them...on an almost daily basis?
"It is not encroaching on your territory." No, it isn't. But it would surely take over South Korea without us. I don't think any government in the world doubts this...especially since it says -- frequently -- that it is its intent.
"Any nuclear weapons facility can be destroyed if absolutely necessary". Of course, the question is whether China or Russia would allow that to happen.
North Korea is more than just a threat to the US. It is menacing the entire region.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699
It's only dirt poor because of the screwballs that have been running it.
According to wiki the North Korean army, at close to a million men, is the largest on earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army
If their nuclear facilities are bombed, their reaction could easily be to stomp into South Korea which would be a cakewalk for them.
NK might be able to stomp over to SK, but could they do it before all their capabilities and communication are already destroyed? They might have a lot of men. But that only does you good when you participate in a ground war. It seems it wouldn't take long to wipe out a good amount of their resources. We don't need an equal # of men to combat their military, I don't think anyhow. I'm not saying I think that is the right answer, just saying that it seems silly from their end to attack America when it would surely only reign down hell on them and their regime. But of course I only get that information from what little I know.
I guess if I were president, I would hope to be able to use the military to send a warning message. I would have no choice but to take on the Karma myself, but to do nothing and possibly allow them to continue to attack others just doesn't seem like a good option, either. I guess if I just sat back and let them attack, they'd be accruing their own Karma, but wouldn't I, too, by allowing others to die when I have options to defend them? I wonder what Buddha would think of the world we live in. But I wonder that often, whether it is war, factory farming, drugs, pets, careers, or whatever the topic might be.
I suggested supporting a revolution, but I'm not even sure that there are enough dissidents living in the DPRK that it would be effectual or successful in a short amount of time (i.e. as a reaction to a nuclear attack).
Perhaps another way would be to convince China to march a crapload of troops over to the China-DPRK border and start surrounding the regime, forcing them to concede.
The thing is, even if the DPRK used a nuclear device on another country, I have doubts that they would have any more. They would be forced to rely on their army (as large as it is). It wouldn't be a sustained conflict. Perhaps if the military and government were completely surrounded and given no options but death or exile, they would concede.
I have thought about collective karma and I have thought about all the inner workings of it running down from a leader or a nation to the staff members and then the civilians, I cannot muster up the energy to type my thoughts on that right now
The whole point is that karma-vipaka follows an intentional individual act.
Unfortunately, this is diagonal to the actual US foreign policy, but it's what I would personally do...
Unfortunately, this is diagonal to the actual US foreign policy, but it's what I would personally do...
I know this is probably illegal in the scope of our world's collective "war ethics" and UN policies... but frankly that makes much more sense to me than sending tens of thousands of soldiers to war and risking the lives of those mostly innocent civilians in the other country. Assassins. Ninjas. Very limited collateral damage that way....
I do agree on the US needing to back out, overall, in some affairs. Our need to make the world run the way we want putting our interests (and mostly profit) above everything else is painfully obvious and will do nothing but bring ruin. And we'll continue to blame everyone else for reacting to some of the horrible policies and practices we have.
As a young child, I always wondered how we can justify having the weapons we do yet we get to tell everyone else they shouldn't have them? Not that I am saying I'm fine with someone like Un having nuclear weapons. But I don't think it should be the US telling them they can't. We aren't, of course, the only one doing that. But I agree with the proposal to have the UN manage these things more so than the US demanding them.
My mom is going to Hawaii soon and she's more than a bit nervous about being so close to North Korea.