Will the Korean peninsula be one nation by the end of the decade?

[King]

Yes.  A decade is probably a conservative estimate, too.

[k-onmmunist]

Lol no

[Хahar 🤔]

Economic problems make reunification unfeasible.

[John Dibble]

The only way I can see it happening is if there's a war that topples the North Korean regime.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I'll be able to adequately understand Tom Waits by the time Korea is unified.

Anyway, the PRC may be annoyed at it's 'spoilt little child', but by no means would it turn it's back on the North Koreans. There's a thing called territorial integrity, and they wouldn't want to damage that. So what are they trying to salvage instead? It's international standing - promoting dialogue between the North and South.

[angus]

No.  After all, we must stand with our North Korean allies.

[seanobr]

Without sounding apathetic to the plight of the North Korean people, I think the mistake is approaching this question with the preconception that reunification under South Korean leadership in the immediate term is the most desirable outcome.  It might be what we intend to achieve as a proper, ethical resolution to the conflict, but the rift between the two is simply astronomical: amplify the divide between East and West Germany by a factor of ten and you may begin to approach the socio-economic separation of present day North and South Korea.  The only commonalities on the peninsula are ethnicity and family; North Korea never recovered from its devastating famine at the close of the last decade, while South Korea is nearing the top-ten in the Human Development Index.  Japan and the West would be attempting to amalgamate two nations that couldn't be farther apart on any statistical metric into one, and the end result of such a fusion could be disastrous.

In the event of an offensive war (perpetrated by either party) or internal regime collapse, I agree it would be the most logical result.  However, I still believe it's completely improbable, despite Chun Yung-Woo's claim and the Chinese government's purported change of opinion on the matter.  The cost of reunification to South Korea would be so punitive, creating an economic disturbance that would reverberate throughout the the international community, that everyone involved will likely actively discourage and try to avert such a prospect until it is the only possible option.

A Chinese-led program of liberalization inside North Korea, with something resembling Mao's abortive Hundred Flowers Campaign and the broad adoption of special economic areas; preserving the country's independence while establishing a placeholder government in Pyongyang until such a time that reunification is more tenable; or creating a U.N. protectorate in its place are all alternatives that would progress us toward reunification while insulating South Korea from the physical and economic burden of rehabilitating North Korea.

[Frodo]

No.  After all, we must stand with our North Korean allies.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is one Sarah Palin quote I will never forget. 

[seanobr]

No.  After all, we must stand with our North Korean allies.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is one Sarah Palin quote I will never forget. 

Along with South Africa, wasn't it one of the political and geographic concepts that she could not comprehend during the McCain campaign?

[J. J.]

12/31/10, I doubt it.

I would say probable by 12/31/20.

[Zarn]

12/31/10, I doubt it.

I would say probable by 12/31/20.

With the decline of thinking capabilities on economics in the First World, I wouldn't not be surprised to see North Korea being the one backed by that year.

[The Mikado]

I wouldn't give the North Korean regime another 5 years.  Whether or not its collapse leads to reunification is another question.  I suspect we'll see some sort of military junta replace the Kims.

[2952-0-0]

This is a culture which places emphasis on face and avoiding direct confrontation, and where unwritten rules far outweigh anything written.

If something does happen after Kim Jong Il dies I think in any case Kim Jong Un will formally remain as "Glorious Leader" or whatever they call him. But it's probable that the people actually making decisions are Chinese/Western-backed Deng-style reformists who will initially struggle against die-hard loyalists. The personality cult will gradually be whittled away, but the propaganda apparatus will continue to glorify the Kims to some extent.

What I don't see happening is an outright overthrow of the regime or of the Kims.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

12/31/10, I doubt it.

OK, I have to admit that J.J. wins this thread.

[J. J.]

12/31/10, I doubt it.

OK, I have to admit that J.J. wins this thread.

I think it will take them more than 31 days to roll up the barbed wire.

[phk]

No

[angus]

12/31/10, I doubt it.

OK, I have to admit that J.J. wins this thread.

I think it will take them more than 31 days to roll up the barbed wire.

There was this episode of Seinfeld in which they were arguing about when the millennium ended.  Kramer wanted to have his end-of-millennium party on December 31, 1999 and Newman wanted it on December 31, 2000.  Or something like that.  In popular culture, the 1999 date proved more popular for millennium parties, although a very good staid, dry, numerical argument favors 2000.   (i.e., there was no year 0 in the AD system of Dionysius Exiguus.)  Like Kramer, I always like to think of January 1, 2000, as the beginning of "this millennium."

I'd interpreted the decade similarly, and assumed that the original post did as well.  In that sense, the "oughts" ended eleven months ago.  We are in the "teens" and this decade ends on December 31, 2019, although I understand that the same staid, dry, numerical argument that favors December 31, 2000 as the end of the previous millennium would put the end of this decade at December 31, 2010. 

[Јas]

... although I understand that the same staid, dry, numerical argument that favors December 31, 2000 as the end of the previous millennium would put the end of this decade at December 31, 2010.  

The assumption that decades must fit neatly into centuries or millenia is an interestingly absurd notion.

[angus]

Agreed, to a point.  The decade from July 17, 1974 to July 16, 1984 is still a decade.  The millenium from Stardate 64381.8 (which is today at 4pm CDT) to Stardate 1064383.1 (which is exactly one thousand years from this moment), is still a millennium.

But at some point I think most folks agree that "by the end of the decade" has a standard meaning, otherwise this conversation becomes intractable.  (It'd be rather like arguing over whether water boils at 55 degrees fahrenheit or at 212 degrees fahrenheit.  Obviously water can be made to boil at either of those temperatures, or at any temperature between its triple point and its critical point, depending upon the externally applied pressure, so some standardization becomes necessary in order to compare boiling points of various substances.)  I can think of two standard meanings floating around in popular culture regarding the phrase "end of the decade" and I think that the "end of the millennium" model exemplifies those two standards precisely.  And, given the fact that by one of those two standards the end of the decades comes in 30 days, I assumed the other.

Edit: to be honest, the only assumption that I actually made was that this was my best shot at using my favorite Sarah Palin quote out of context. 

[Хahar 🤔]

There's no reason that "this decade" would include, 2001-2009; that's counterintuitive.

[Psychic Octopus]

Economic problems make reunification unfeasible.

At least until they have economies of similar development, which won't be for a long time. South Korea absorbing North Korea would make German reunification seem like a walk in the park.

[Mr. Morden]

What is this decade called again?  The tens?  The teens?

[Psychic Octopus]

What is this decade called again?  The tens?  The teens?

I personally call it the "tens" and "twenty-tens." I don't know whether or not there is an official name for it though. What do we call the 2000s? Please tell me it isn't "the two thousands?"

[The Mikado]

Twenty-teens.

[dead0man]

What do we call the 2000s? Please tell me it isn't "the two thousands?"

The aughts.