Your article was "spot-on!" From your explanation of MAD, to lessening of American interests in protecting ROK, to you final "aside" that north korea may actually be spending itself into it's own oblivion, your observations reflected what we call, in political science, a "Realist" theory of international relations. I am absolutely sure that this theory best explains the relationship between the US and the koreas. What is most worrisome about all this, is that America is a truly unreliable ally, and has little credibility as an international referee. It is nice to believe that America's interests align perfectly with the ROK's. But that simply is not so. America will support the ROK to the extent, and for so long as American interests are protected...to the degree that they are worth protecting. Only....
Korea is a pawn to America, valuable only so far as it is an extension of American interests in the world (at least east asia). But America has multiple and shifting alliances, and the priority of the US-ROK alliance must be weighed against the waxing and waning benefits that America gets from other relationships (i.e. US-Japan, US-Taiwan and other non-formalized relationships such as it has with China). There can be no guarantee that America will always "be there" for South Korea. Your point, right? Exactly right. Please continue your call for the ROK to muscle up for it's own self-defense. It is time....
Jim Pattison
Greetings from New England. My name is Christine Leah, I am a postdoctoral fellow in the Grand Strategy Program at Yale. I read your op-ed yesterday when it appeared in my daily nuclear news. Needless to say, I really enjoyed the piece. I've also questioned the credibility of extended deterrence in op-eds, especially that it now 'operates' in a maritime context (compared to Cold War European land context), although it's probably made me unpopular. I wanted to congratulate you for expressing your opinion and say how much I enjoyed your piece.
Korea is a pawn to America, valuable only so far as it is an extension of American interests in the world (at least east asia). But America has multiple and shifting alliances, and the priority of the US-ROK alliance must be weighed against the waxing and waning benefits that America gets from other relationships (i.e. US-Japan, US-Taiwan and other non-formalized relationships such as it has with China). There can be no guarantee that America will always "be there" for South Korea. Your point, right? Exactly right. Please continue your call for the ROK to muscle up for it's own self-defense. It is time....
Jim Pattison
Greetings from New England. My name is Christine Leah, I am a postdoctoral fellow in the Grand Strategy Program at Yale. I read your op-ed yesterday when it appeared in my daily nuclear news. Needless to say, I really enjoyed the piece. I've also questioned the credibility of extended deterrence in op-eds, especially that it now 'operates' in a maritime context (compared to Cold War European land context), although it's probably made me unpopular. I wanted to congratulate you for expressing your opinion and say how much I enjoyed your piece.
Christine Leah
![IU-Sung duo's winter ballad tops charts [VIDEO]](http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/e278c44173934e0c93a50f101adf8788.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
