What's up with Korea?

Subject: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 May 04 - 10:13 PM

I've always had a very hard time following news about Korea. I have a vague idea of the politics from a course in Pacific Rim Geography but...

I heard that Korea is sending troops to Iraq and that the Korean soldiers have converted to Islam to better understand the culture. Whaaaat????????

I have also heard something about U.S. troops inching closer to the border separating North and South Korea.

What is going on? War makes strange bedfellows!

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 May 04 - 10:28 PM

US troops have been ON the border between North and South Korea since 1953. The US is actually talking about pulling about 12,000 troops OUT of South Korea (of the 37,000 who are stationed there).

I don't know if ROK (Republic of Korea, the south) troops are in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised, though. I doubt that they are converting to Islam -- Koreans are Buddhists, animists, and Christians, mostly.

That said, the ROK army is one of the toughest and meanest in the world. They are well trained, well equipped, and quite ready to fight. Their record in Vietnam was outstanding -- and they had no qualms about committing what we would call "abuse" to obtain information from prisoners. (This does not mean I approve of such.)

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 28 May 04 - 11:00 PM

NPR yesterday---the gist of it was that to limit or delete N. Korean nuclear capabilities, the U.S. may be on yet another intervention course. It sounded serious as all hell. 'Twas the Dianne "Rheem" Show---or however that is spelled. And it sounded like the real thing and on the actual agenda. Left me feeling helpless --- again. That is something I have felt a whole lot of late.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 04 - 11:06 PM

Art,

With the UN showing that it is ineffectual in enforcing it's own resolutions, the TEMPORAY cease fire ( since 1954) between N & S Korea may be broken at any time. Since the US is mired in Iraq, and , thanks to earlier administrations, does not have the capability to fight two wars, we will be forced to either accept the overrun of S. Korea, or use WMD. I only hope that the N. Koreans use them first, or the entire world will scream about the unprovoked US attack- though the N. Koreans started the wole thing in 1951...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 May 04 - 11:54 PM

Actually, inching closer was the wrong phrase.

I am hearing conflicting reports.

1) There is a build-up of forces along the north/south border of Korea
2) U.S. troops are being pulled from Korea and deployed to Iraq

As to the conversion - it seems that some of the Koreans have, indeed, converted to Islam. Seems it is an effort to understand the culture in Iraq and also to gain respect. They want to be seen as re-builders not occupiers.

These are very strange times.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 29 May 04 - 12:42 PM

All this contradicts what I've heard. I understand that US troops are being moved further from the border. Our 37,000 troops aren't much threat to the million man North Korean army, however bad off they are.

A "friend" highly critical of the Administration claims this is in effect abandoning our responsibilities to Korea since it, in his opinion, leaves Seoul defenseless against thousands of pieces of North Korean artillery. (He'll never learn as the French did in WW II, you're better off positioning yourself away from a line to be able to respond to an attack on a it than sitting on it.) Besides, if the US were seriously going to invade North Korea, they wouldn't do it through the heavily mined demilitarized zone. You'd see a major build up with lots of naval activity including a couple of carrier task forces preparing for a landing north of the line, not minor army movements.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the US is continuing to reposition all of its forces after the end of the Cold War. Clinton did part of the job when the military was restructured during his administration, but he left us with bases that were designed for a much larger military dealing with a threat that doesn't really exist any more. North Korea really isn't up to an invasion of the much richer if less militarized South and the US troops there are basically tokens of another age.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 12:52 PM

"North Korea really isn't up to an invasion of the much richer if less militarized South "

This is wishfull thinking. I know of no supporting evidence that the N. Korean army would have ANY problem in an invasion of the South.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 29 May 04 - 12:58 PM

No, North Korea would not have much trouble invading the South, but that would be a fight that would be the end of the North Korean state as we know it. South Korea could defend itself, and not only would the U.S. intervene - Japan would do all it could and the Chinese "back door" would be locked and bolted, unlike during the 50s.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 01:03 PM

"No, North Korea would not have much trouble invading the South, but that would be a fight that would be the end of the North Korean state as we know it."

I agree, entirely, but so what? The question is what the N. Korean government thinks, not what we think, or what actually might happen.


"South Korea could defend itself,"

Not really.


"and not only would the U.S. intervene "

With what forces? This would have to be a WMD response, as I said.


- Japan would do all it could and the Chinese "back door" would be locked and bolted, unlike during the 50s. "

Also true, but would that be enough to stop the N. Koreans? I do not think so, but there is room for debate on that.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 01:07 PM

Oh, and what would Japan do when the N. Koreans threaten to use the WMDs they HAVE on Japan, if it interferes? They have already tested the launch vehicles, and we know that they have the warheads...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 29 May 04 - 01:12 PM

All I'm saying Bruce is that North Korea has to know that any military action against the South would be a suicide activity and would end the leader's power.

I'm not saying the couldn't do it, but what would be the point?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 04 - 01:12 PM

Does the evidence that there is a likelihood of an attack by North Korea on South Korea come from the same kind of sources as the evidence about Saddam's weaponry and the threat he imposed to the rest of the world?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 01:24 PM

Blackcatter: From our point of view, there is no point- BUT that DOES NOT MATTER! It is the point of view of the head of government that matters, remember? Just as the policy of MAD is NOT effective against suicidal terrorists.

same kind of souces? I don't know the kind, but the information is pretty solid- you knowm, rockets going from Korea over Japan and landing in the Pacific... As for the warheads, I have not yet seen the mushroom clouds. But I would not bet the rergion that they do not have them, as they claim.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 04 - 02:55 PM

"It is the point of view of the head of government that matters" - which could explain why North Korea wants to make sure the head of government of the USA knows it has rather more in the way of weapons than Saddam had...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 29 May 04 - 02:58 PM

Well I just don't think that the North Korean leadership is as stupid as Saddam. And now they have added evidence of what Bush would do. (not that I'm a Bush supporter.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 03:06 PM

I have no confidence in the intelligence of any head of state.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 29 May 04 - 03:07 PM

Well you've got me there.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 03:09 PM

8-{E

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 29 May 04 - 03:52 PM

"Well I just don't think that the North Korean leadership is as stupid as Saddam."

Actually, I don't believe they're really smarter, but they're certainly more insane.

What I was refering to was the obvious economic situation in North Korea. They don't have enough oil to heat the country in the winter or food to eat any time of the year. While I believe they're crazy enough to starve their people to launch a war, I don't think they have the resouces launch a credible attack. It's not about having weapons or men, it's about getting them and fuel and food and ammo to where they have to fight. Tough against an enemy who'd have air supremecy. It would be a very short war once the few old, old tanks that survived the air assualts from Okinawa ran out of gas and spare parts. Even that's assuming China, who wants trouble (especially mushroom clouds) on the peninsula even less than we do, stays out of it. All they'd have to do is decide to cut off supplies to North Korea to end any war.

The North Korean army's defensive capabilities are a different story and would make any invasion terribly expensive. Their nuclear capability is entirely defensive, too. It would be useful to let an opponent know what you'd do if you were desperate enough to survive, but using nukes offensively doesn't make sense when US retaliation is only a few short minutes away. North Korea'd be a tough nut to invade, but that says nothing about their capability to pull off an invasion of their own.

That said, moving any part of our division or worth of men one direction or the other isn't enough to worry the US is considering attacking North Korea. You'd need a much larger army than is in Iraq to do that and that's the only one we have at the moment. The US gave up being prepared to fight a two front war in the 90s, remember?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:14 PM

Well, the N. Korean army can walk to Seoul.... and the only way to stop them would be with WMD.

A nuclear bomb is always offensive- it is only defensive when it remains a deterrent. Once you use it...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:21 PM

I don't know Bruce - those million men aren't all on the border and that border has more landmines and defenses than most other borders combined. Couple that with the proximity of te U.S Air Force, I doubt that many would reach the suburbs of Seoul.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:23 PM

"Well, the N. Korean army can walk to Seoul.... and the only way to stop them would be with WMD."

Yeah, except for the one million land mines that remain a key reason the US won't join in the anti-land mine treaty. They can be cleared, but not in time to keep all those hungry, slow moving troops from being slaughtered from the air. Then the real party starts -- the North Koreans have to face a modern, well equiped army that doesn't have to worry about having enough fuel, food or ammo. The South Korean, I mean, not the US.

"A nuclear bomb is always offensive- it is only defensive when it remains a deterrent. Once you use it..."

True, but most nations find it difficult to forget that there's exactly one nation that's proven they aren't afraid to use them and who reinterates their intentions to retaliate in kind if they're ever used against us or an ally. Yeah, I know, in the long run it all depends on how crazy (suicidal?) HONG Song-nam really is...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:29 PM

The Iranians had a way to move armies through mine fields- just put a bunch of civilians out from, and march forward...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:34 PM

Is there any reason at all to think that North Korea might have any plans to invade South Korea?

Now a "pre-emptive" attack on North Korea to stop that happening, that might be a bit more likely. But probably not very likely.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:35 PM

Well, they are that crazy. So while this is happening across two miles of heavily mined DMZ, where's their army? Bunched up behind them presenting themselves as perfect targets from the air? Remember it worked for the Iranians because the Iraqi's didn't have much of an air force and certainly didn't have air superiority.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:37 PM

And when the Japanese do not allow us to fly out of Japan? ( remember those IRBMs...)

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:41 PM

btw, do you know how many tunnels there are in the area near the DMZ? Just ask anyone ever stationed there... (I hope some may weigh in here- I am going strictly from the conversations I have had , thus my info is second hand)

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 29 May 04 - 04:48 PM

I don't think Japan would have much control over what was happening out of Okinawa given a outbreak of war in Korea. Just as I don't believe the one or two nukes North Korea has are currently mated to a lauch vehicle that's ready to go from a launch site that isn't observable from satellite. A little planning might straighten that out, but as McGrath points out, there's no reason to believe that North Korea has been pushed that far yet. We'd have warning from the Chinese if something were up. Really.

I was responding to the question of whether the US was planning an invasion of North Korea. I've laid out the reasons I don't think that's likely, particularly given where our carriers are or rather where they aren't.

Here's the link so anyone can check for themselves:

Where are the Carriers?

Look for at least two carrier task forces on extended deployments off the Sea of Japan before anythink like an invasion of North Korea could happen. Defensive war from Okinawa? Yeah, sure. Offensive war from Okinawa? No way.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 05:02 PM

6 + nukes, last I heard... And isn't Okinawa a part of Japan? All it takes is a credible threat, which the N. Koreans certainly present.

And if the NK can land frogmen in Japan, they can place a nuke in a harbor...

I agree with you about the US starting an offensive war there. It is the sanity of the NK that I worry about.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 29 May 04 - 05:23 PM

Trust me - one certain thing about the Japan-Korea theater is that Japan will do anything to maintain stability. A Stable Korea provides them with a lot of work and profits. China too. Japan will be happy to allow the U.S. to respond to any North Korean agression.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 05:26 PM

Even if it means a half-dozen nukes in their cities?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 04 - 05:29 PM

Well, sanity is a relative term, and there's not that much of it around at higher levels of government. But most times there's a streak of rationality in even the strangest politico.

Off hand, I can't think of any occasion when a head of state has done anything quite as daft as an attack on South Korea at this time. There's no reason whatsoever to think that Kim Chong-il is into the terrorist-suicide mentality.

If there's going to be a new Korean War, I'd look to America to start it. And I don't actually expect that to happen.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 05:32 PM

Well, I hope you are right. BUT it is better to plan for the worst, and be prepsred, then it is plan for the best and be dead.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 04 - 06:10 PM

So long as planning for the worst doesn't involve launching a pre-emptive war on the basis of flawed intelligence...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 29 May 04 - 06:32 PM

Bruce - I think that's what S. Korea and the U.S has been doing for 50 years. Also - the occsional appeasment of NK with humaitarian type stuff helps.

Taking out NK nukes would be first on the list of the U.S. And hey - Japan's the only nation that's had to deal with them.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 06:40 PM

I understand why the Japanese would not want to have nukes used on them. I was merely stating that they would "encourage" the US not to do whatever the NK didn't like, rather than risk it. A very reasonable attitude, I think- but it does remove some of the air threat we could bring to bear.
Yes, we have. I hope we will continue. BUT, if NK decides to act foolishly, remember it only takes one side to start a war. Of course, we could always just surrender.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 04 - 06:42 PM

I sent an e-mail to the CIA last year when NK was brandishing nukes--making lotsa noise about having a dozen of them. I suggested that the US could do itself a favour by lending a dozen to SK. You launch one, we launch one. I'm basically a peaceful guy, but I really don't like people who use nuclear weapons as a threat to others. Mostly, if someone's gonna play hardball, I want to pitch. Many people here won't like this. Sorry.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 29 May 04 - 07:01 PM

"So long as planning for the worst doesn't involve launching a pre-emptive war on the basis of flawed intelligence..."

True, but one can't help noticing that when ever North Korea act particularly paranoid about the US attacking them, the Bush administration goes, "huh?" The North Korean threat is relatively local (OK, it doesn't affect our oil supplies) and the US has been involving other nations in negotiations since this flaired up again. It's just a little far fetched.

I repeat, despite our ability to beat up any kid on the world block, we can't beat up two at a time. And if it were true, we'd announce our intentions by prepositioned the huge amount of resources it would take to invade North Korea. I could be wrong, maybe they're next on the list (which would upset Iran and Syria who are expecting the honor). Fine. Raise the flag when the carriers start moving that way.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 07:08 PM

brucie:

I don't like the idea of anyone using nukes as a weapon ( now, for construction or moving comets...) I do not want the US backed into a situation where we will use them. But, as I said, MAD only works when both sides are sane.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 04 - 07:11 PM

"one can't help noticing that when ever North Korea act particularly paranoid about the US attacking them, the Bush administration goes, "huh?"

What does "huh" mean, though? Is it really "paranoid" to be worried that a hostile superpower with a record of attacking other countries, when it sees fit, might see fit in this case.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 04 - 07:45 PM

MAD worked for years. We grew up with it. Neither of us liked it. I don't know that both side were 'sane' at all times. I am glad that it seems to be over, and the thought of nuclear weapons (and certain other WMDs) still makes me cringe. However, I do think that the only rational response to the use of a nuclear weapon on people is another nuclear weapon on the folks who started it.

Years ago, my daughter was being bullied by two classmates. I listened to her teacher say that if my daughter hit back she would be just as guilty. The bullying continued. Meanwhile, I taught her to do a very good round kick followed by a double punch to the chest. She became very good at that. The day came, ya know. My daughter got pushed again. She rk'ed the girl's arm just below the shoulder and gave her two in the plexus. She was sent to the office and subsequently sent home for a day. However, she has never been bullied again. I am tired of bullies getting away with it, and sick to shit of hearing how we should all turn the other cheek. I come from a 'philosophical' position of "don't fu#k with me and I won't with you. Threaten to hit me and I'll break something of yours right now."

I know that isn't a very enlightened attitude for a guy to have, but I don't think it's too enlightened to be hit, either. Mostly, the threat comes close enough for me.

Like your poetry, by the way. Was that really your 552nd sonnet?

Later.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 07:58 PM

yes, one of my earlier ones... up to 913, now.

I agree about both MAD, and bullies. Turning the other cheek is a good way to be attacked again.

I remeber the Cuban Missle crisis. I live near DC, so... learned that in case of atomic attack, you need to have a school desk handy to duck under.

Then I read "Hiroshima", and the 1964 book on the effects of nuclear weapons. If someone threatens to use a nuclear weapon on an inhabited area, unprovoked, they should be taken out and shot.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 04 - 08:06 PM

Your poetry is really good. Have you published? And, if you don't mind me asking, what got you into iambic pentameter, and do you ever write Spenserian structure (ABABBCBCCDCDEE) or Petrarchan (Italian)(ABBAABBACDECDE, or CDCDCD)?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 08:13 PM

Some published in Mobius, a lit. magazine. Not much call for the structured forms, these days.
I have written a number of Italian sonnets, and some varients. Done some coronas as well, and one sonnet redouble. ( see other threads)

"In the old days a poet used to sweat turning out a sonnet, say. Very difficult form. Exactly 14 lines, all of them hung together with rhyme, rhythm, meter, perfectly. It was too much work for the poet, so blank verse and then free verse came in. And then anarchy. The new poet never bothered to learn how to write a sonnet, or to measure his lines in correct meter and to follow a rhythm system. He dashed off his inspired poem in a matter of a half hour and was surprised when after a few decades of this people stopped reading poetry."

Among the Bad Baboons, by Mack Reynolds
Copyright 1968 Galaxy Publishing Corp.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 08:26 PM

btw, I am looking for an editor/publisher, if anyone knows of one that will not run screaming at the thought of sonnets...


http://www.cassiopeiascastings.com/

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 04 - 08:36 PM

"I do think that the only rational response to the use of a nuclear weapon on people is another nuclear weapon on the folks who started it."

I'd call that mad. Once the bluff has failed, all that achieves is further devastation. That was the logic underlying the use of the term MAD. It involved convincing other side that you actually were mad enough to do that. And the chances that it wasn't a bluff, and that in fact our leaders were that mad. Or perhaps evil is the word.

Makes Bin Laden's lot look like very small beer in comparison. A mere three thousand souls? As against how mnay hundred millions?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 04 - 08:48 PM

MAD was mutually assured destruction. Tell me how allowing a city to be nuked--and then turning the other cheek--will prevent another city from being nuked? I understand you are a sane voice of reason. But please, McG of H, answer that question for me. Serious.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 04 - 08:50 PM

Mc G of H: I am willing to have my mind changed on this. The lingering question I have is this: NK nukes SK. SK ignores that. And then, what?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 08:50 PM

The point is to make it clear that the use of WMD will be a reason to be destroyed. IF we did not show that the end result makes the use of WMD not practical, they would continue to be used. Wishing them away does not work.

A 250 KT device would probably kill as many as , say 20 million people, in someplace like Hong Kong or Mexico City. Lots more injured. The whole idea is to insure that whoever set it off does not have the chance to do it again. One strike, and you're out.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: GUEST,artbrooks on vacation
Date: 29 May 04 - 09:02 PM

The ROK Army is nearly as large as the North Korean one, and is both better equipped and well fed. It is doubtful if the NKA could defeat them in any kind of stand-up conflict. More here.