Sudan and South Sudan on the Brink of War.

I'm very receptive to an argument in favor of intervention, I'm just unsure as to what form that intervention should take. This isn't a situation whereby international forces are preventing an autocratic regime from attacking its own populace. Instead, what we have, are two countries with their own interests attacking one another.

It's pretty clear to me that Sudan, while being a bad actor in the past and certainly being culpable in creating this crisis, is certainly not the initial aggressor here. South Sudan likewise is not the most innocent actor either. Now, I don't think you necessarily have to have an innocent party to intervene on behalf of human rights, but it might change the character of the intervention.

So, would the preferred method be a no-fly zone and maybe an enforced DMZ along the disputed regions? That's certainly not a great permanent solution, but I don't think the situation, by any stretch warrants regime change--and even if it does I think one can make as good an argument for regime change of al-Bashir's regime as you can for South Sudan's Juba-based government. None of these solutions really appeal to me. That's not to say, though, that nothing should be done by any stretch.

In the long term, demilitarized zones are pointless investments that waste lives and capitol. Once the relationship between the two nations is stabilized, a ten-mile stretch of landmines separating the countries would just lead to scores of civilian deaths and injuries. Putting up a DMZ means that children will have to worry about getting their legs blown off during peace time, whenever they want to cross the border to see their relatives.

Originally Posted by Tavros

You forget that China and the United States aren't enemies, and are in many ways more closely tied than they've ever been since the formation of the PRoC.

The single greatest threat to American international political dominance is the rise of The People's Republic of China. Everyone in the American government knows that, and everyone in the Chinese government knows that.

Economically, it's smarter to pretend to play nice and trade with each other, so that's what they've elected to do.

Make no mistake, if either could crush the other without suffering debilitating consequences, they would.

Why in the name of all that is holy would they put mines in a demilitarized zone?

In the long term, demilitarized zones are pointless investments that waste lives and capitol. Once the relationship between the two nations is stabilized, a ten-mile stretch of landmines separating the countries would just lead to scores of civilian deaths and injuries. Putting up a DMZ means that children will have to worry about getting their legs blown off during peace time, whenever they want to cross the border to see their relatives.

I think the DMZ between the two Koreas does alright.

Originally Posted by Tavros

In the long term, demilitarized zones are pointless investments that waste lives and capitol. Once the relationship between the two nations is stabilized, a ten-mile stretch of landmines separating the countries would just lead to scores of civilian deaths and injuries. Putting up a DMZ means that children will have to worry about getting their legs blown off during peace time, whenever they want to cross the border to see their relatives.

Certainly. Again, there's no solution that really appeals to me. However, nations might need to weigh in on a utilitarian balancing test that weighs the lives that would be lost in the future against the lives that will probably be lost in the present. It's speculative reasoning, but I think it must be done. If the conclusion is that, for example, in the event of a continued conflict thousands of lives will be lost versus the hundreds of lives lost proximately caused by a DMZ, then suddenly a DMZ doesn't look as unattractive.

And...mines certainly aren't necessary to maintain a DMZ.

Originally Posted by Great White North

I think the DMZ between the two Koreas does alright.

The Koreas don't have a stable relationship yet. When a unified nation is established, clearing the DMZ the Americans created will be a massive, dangerous, and expensive undertaking.

Originally Posted by Tavros

The Koreas don't have a stable relationship yet. When a unified nation is established, clearing the DMZ the Americans created will be a massive, dangerous, and expensive undertaking.

The DMZ is fifty years old.

I can't imagine the human cost that would have resulted if it were not established.