What's up with Korea?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 09:15 PM

ROK-
The army possesses component units including 11 corps, 49 divisions, and 19 brigades, some 560,000 troops, some 2,360 tanks, 5,180 pieces of field artillery, and 2,400 armored vehicles.

North Korea
North Korea continues to position forces into the area just north of the DMZ— in a position to threaten Combined Forces Command and all of Seoul with little warning. Seventy percent of their active force, including approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is postured within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. This percentage continues to rise despite the June 2000 summit. Most of this force in the forward area is protected in over 4,000 underground facilities, out of over 11,000 nationwide. From their current locations, these forces can attack with minimal preparations or warning. The protracted southward deployment follows a tactic of "creeping normalcy"—a significant movement over a period of many years that would attract too much international attention if accomplished over weeks or months.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/index.html


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-crisis.htm



Nearly as large? How about half the number?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 09:17 PM

By taking possession of the 8,000 spent fuel rods in late December 2002, the North could conceivably begin producing plutonium-based bombs in as little as six months -- by late June 2003. Commercial satellite images from Digital Globe depicted possible North Korean efforts to prepare for the reprocessing of spent fuel in order to extract plutonium. A pair of images acquired on 15 January 2003 and 28 January 2003 showed smoke coming from a coal fired steam plant as well as steam coming from the steam line connecting the steam plant to the plutonium reprocessing facility. The preponderance of evidence would suggest that by mid-2003 North Korea had completed reprocessing the spent fuel, and that North Korea's stockpile consisted of the two nuclear weapons it had prior to 2003, and an additional six nuclear weapons produced during 2003. The stockpile may have been depleted by one device tested in Pakistan in 1998.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 09:19 PM

In a May 2004 interview with Selig Harrison, DPRK vice-foreign minister Kim Gye-gwan said "... the bomb dropped by the US at Nagasaki was made after four months of preparation. It's now a half century later, and we have more up-to-date technologies, so you can come to your own conclusions on this matter." DPRK foreign minister Paik Nam-soon said: "I don't think mere devices and the possession of nuclear material constitute a genuine deterrent. When we say deterrent, we mean a capability that can deter an attack." Adn Gen. Ri Chan-bok, spokesman for the Korean People's Army said "When we can't develop without a test, we'll test. ... Even without a test, we can develop, complete and manufacture nuclear weapons." ["Inside North Korea: leaders open to ending nuclear crisis," Selig Harrison, Financial Times (London, England) May 4, 2004 Tuesday]

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 29 May 04 - 10:48 PM

Boy I go away for awhile . . .

As for giving SK some of our nuke - we don't need to, I'd be willing to bet that U.S. forces there already have a few tactical nukes. If not, there's always at least one sub in the area and as mentioned before at least one carrier.

NK know that if they go nuclear we're likely to as well.

As for 700,000 men within 90 miles of the border, living underground, that's the only kind of war that the Pentagon KNOWS how to fight. Al sorts of men and ordinance jammed together just sitting there waiting for some form of carpet bombing. Sure they may still live underground, but why would we ever need to let up long enough to let them run across the landmines?

Meanwhile the SK military is well fed, has happy families and trains with the U.S., Japan and other countries.

No, Japan won't let us do whatever we want, but if NK starts something serious, you can bet that Japan will not have a problem with us launching air operations out of the Ryukyus.


Certainly, NK could attempt something but why? I think the first gulf war proved that the 1st world won't stand for that kind of crap (except in Rwanda where we don't care). SK is today a major player in the world of capitalism (and one day they might just have a real democracy).

I think that we should start operations over NK - dropping disposable cell phones, $1000 gift cards and Korean language catalogs to Lands End, etc,).

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 04 - 10:58 PM

that would work... but can we drop a few in my neighborhood, too?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:13 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.

I'm convinced that North Korea is so out of the mainline of any US calculations (to the minor extent I think such calculations exist) that the Administration is genuinely surprised when North Korea assumes they're next.

BTW, all superpowers should be considered hostile and became that way by attacking other countries even it it required establishing some minimal pretext to do so. Shall we discuss the growth of Empirial Britain as an example? Compared to that the US is very nearly the Boy Scouts most of us want to believe we are but never were. We've been acting with relatively restrainted imperial tendencies from our beginning despite the myth we cherished we were different from other powers.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 04 - 02:55 PM

Strick, Strick, Strick... You miss the point:

US BAD. Other than US GOOD.

This should be your mantra, at least until there is some reason that they want the US to bail them out again...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 03:04 PM

Sorry, I wasn't subscribing to the notion that the US has pulled the British chestnuts out of the fire twice, so they should be grateful to us. More that the US acts like other powers have in the past and was using an example most here can relate to.

My main thesis in this remains that the US has no vested interest in attacking North Korea and that the price for the result would be too high for any administration to contemplate even if we weren't otherwise occupied. One Korean war was enough. That calculation should be clear to any rational government, particularly one that's got China's security guarantees.

On the other hand, paranoia is a good way to keep a starving, poverty striken population under control. See [i]1984[/i]. We make a great bad guy for North Korea so most of what they're saying about us is really for domestic consumption.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 04 - 05:59 PM

±»ÖäÁRµÄ±±³¯õrÈËÔÚʹÿ‚€ÈË쳌ÀÅ­¡£

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 04 - 05:59 PM

Well, that should start a shooting war.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 30 May 04 - 09:02 PM

I understand a little better now. While N. Korea is slowly moving closer to the N/S border of Korea, the U.S. has decided to pull its troops and send them to Iraq. That leaves S. Korea to defend itself should N. Korea decide to invade. The U.S. is counting on Japan to help S. Korea if this should occur.

Where does Russia fit into the picture?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 30 May 04 - 09:25 PM

Still not what I understand, dianavan.

The US is removing part of it's troops, but they don't belong in South Korea in the post Cold War world anyway. US troops will remain. No one expects Japan to support South Korea directly, only not to oppose US military action from Japanese bases. Russian is a long way on the other side of a hostile-to-them-China in this and probably won't have much say unless something goes to the UN Security Counsel. Russian didn't support North Korea in the Korean War, China did because China shares a border with them.

Does someone have a different picture of this?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 30 May 04 - 09:36 PM

That's pretty much my take on it. I doubt that China would be supportive of N.K. if N.K. starts something. China wants to play friendly with S.K., Japan and the U.S.

Russia has little interest on it's eastern end. They won't get involved.

Japan can't do much itself, they have only a small defense force. That is why the U.S. is still in the area in large numbers. Remember that's still a pretty big area - the China/Taiwan issue, The Koreas. No way the U.S. isn't going to be a major player in anything big that happens. We've got defense pacts with Japan, Taiwan and S.K.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 31 May 04 - 02:49 AM

I think there is an island north of Japan that is very dear to Russia.
If there is unrest in the Sea of Japan, Russia is sure to be interested. They will have to take a side. It would be in their best interest to support Korea I would think.

I am assuming that the island is still part of Russia.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: GUEST,Sledge
Date: 31 May 04 - 06:20 AM

I think you are referring to Sahkalin Island that used to be split between Russian and Japan, at the end of WWII Russia over-ran the Island as part of its support for the US efforts in the Pacific, and kept it.

I've been there and its quite wild on the whole, a giant box of natural recourses just awaiting exploitation, very beatiful. Used to house a great many prison camps, some of which are still visible from the train as you move up the island.

Japan definately wants it back, the oil potential is quite large.

Cheers

Sledge

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 31 May 04 - 11:30 AM

I wasn't implying that Russia would take no notice, but it's unlikely the Japan will use North Korean issues to try to take over Sahkalin Is.

If Japan wants it, they should just buy it.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 31 May 04 - 08:16 PM

What makes you think its for sale?

In addition to the natural resources and the oil, its in a very strategic location.

Thats like saying if the U.S. wants Iraq, why don't they just buy it?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 04 - 11:29 PM

dianavan: They did. Cost thousands of lives. Don't know if it's outright ownership, but at least a long-term lease.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 04 - 11:40 PM

They seem to be having a hard time establishing undisputed ownership.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 12:03 AM

I was partially joking, but I wouldn't be surpirsed if Russia wouldn't entertain the notion. It's not the only land and Vladavostok is on the mainland - I doubt that Russia needs anything more than that for strategic importance.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 05:21 AM

There was an article on CNN.com yesterday, about China preparing to attack Taiwan. Seems to me China might NOT object to a conflict in Korea...

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 07:57 AM

US has known for quite some time now, that they do not have to do anything regarding NK, as NK is not about to attack anyone. IF they did make any moves towards disturbing the peace in the region - The leadership in NK know that it will be PRC that settles their hash and pretty damn quickly - Not SK, not Japan, not the US - Of course we all definitely know that it will definitely NOT be the UN.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: GUEST,Blackcatter
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 04:13 PM

China has been preparing to attack Taiwan since 1949.

They know they won't get away with it, so they won't.

The chinese leadership knows that the best way for them to continues getting more and more personal ealth is to keep allowing foreing companies into the nation to sell things. South Korea, Japan and the U.S. are three of their largest trading partners. It'd be silly for them to jepordize that.

The reason that thinks like that can and do go on in the mid-east is because they don't need particualar countries to work with. Any number of countries (and private companies) will buy their oil. With that cash they can do whatever they want. That's part of the reason Egypt and Turkey have been better behaved than the others - the U.S. pays them off.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 04:55 PM

Blackcatter,

"They know they won't get away with it, so they won't."

1. I do not think that they know this
2. If they did, the statement is an admission that when they do think they can get away with it, they will. Such as a bargain to keep NK from using nukes in trade for the US turning a blind eye towards Taiwan.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 05:14 PM

"South Korea, Japan and the U.S. are three of their largest trading partners. It'd be silly for them to jepordize that."

You obviously have never read any history. Governments do "silly" things all the time.

Hey, Hitler was going to stop with the Sudatenland... Czechoslovakia... Poland... Gee, where did he stop?

If I am wrong, and we have taken precautions/made plans against NK attacking the south, what is the cost, in dollars and lives?

If you are wrong, and we take no precautions and end up with a war with China over Taiwan, and no ability to use Japanese bases because of nuclear blackmail by NK, how many people will die, and what will that cost us?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:13 AM

I think we should all keep an eye on the Sea of Japan. With U.S. toops deployed to Iraq, anything could happen in that region. The question of Taiwan independence may not seem like a biggy to you on the east coast, but believe me, this has been simmering for a long while. Instability along the Korean border could easily trigger another "World War".

Bush is inept. Americon is short-sighted and profit oriented.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 05:25 AM

"I think we should all keep an eye on the Sea of Japan. With U.S. toops deployed to Iraq, anything could happen in that region. The question of Taiwan independence may not seem like a biggy to you on the east coast, but believe me, this has been simmering for a long while. Instability along the Korean border could easily trigger another "World War". "


You think correctly.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 05:34 AM

Strick - 30 May 04 - 02:13 PM

"BTW, all superpowers should be considered hostile and became that way by attacking other countries even it it required establishing some minimal pretext to do so. Shall we discuss the growth of Empirial Britain as an example?"

By all means do.

dianavan - 03 Jun 04 - 01:13 AM

"I think we should all keep an eye on the Sea of Japan."

"Instability along the Korean border could easily trigger another "World War"."

No dianavan, keep an eye on Pakistan. Nothing will happen in either Taiwan or on the Korean Penninsula that will trigger another "World War". Besides we've got one already, that has been running for quite a few years now, only most on this forum just haven't recognised it. It is also considered poor form to have more than one "World War" running at any one time - it tends to confuse the historians.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 04 - 03:28 AM

You're right about keeping an eye on Pakistan. Oddly enough, Rumsfeld thinks that because he put the Pakistani, nuclear scientist out of business, they no longer have to worry about that part of the world. Hmmm....

Seems like Rumsfeld is playing two ends against the middle. Why is Pakistan still an ally?

South Korea, however, seems to moving in the right direction. They have decided to give rice to North Korea (its about time) and are relaxing the borders. Peace talks are coming up.

The U.S. is also moving nuclear submarines. This is far from over.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 05 Jun 04 - 11:02 AM

Pakistan is still an ally because it tells us it still wants to be an ally.

The U.S. network of allies in many ways is not unlike "confidential informants" for cops.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM

From the Korean Herald:
The "anti-American" Koreans were basically right about the war in Iraq. It has been an
                   unmitigated disaster. Even if the United States can somehow temporarily stabilize the situation
                   before the U.S. election in November, the original reasons given for the war have proven to be
                   false. The toll of human suffering that has ensued cannot be justified, not even by the ouster of
                   the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. And, most important, in the long run many times more
                   angry Islamic terrorists have been created by the U.S. occupation of an Arab nation than have
                   been rooted out by the intervention.

I also understand that S. Korea is now witholding their troops from Iraq. Friction (or a split) with the U.S. is just what N. Korea is hoping for. Apparently, North and South are hoping for re-unification, wishing the U.S. would stop meddling. The U.S., of course, wants to maintain their strategic presence in the area.

Peace talks are coming up. It should be interesting.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Strick
Date: 06 Jun 04 - 03:45 PM

"South Korea, Japan and the U.S. are three of their largest trading partners. It'd be silly for them to jepordize that."

You obviously have never read any history. Governments do "silly" things all the time.

Not the Chinese, not with their economy growing so fast they're trying to slow it down before it overheats. They'be got better things to do.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Jun 04 - 03:59 PM

Strick - I don't understand your comment on beardedbruce's post. Are you saying China has no interest in Taiwan because of its booming economy or that it has no interest in Korea because of its booming economy?

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 10:21 AM

The Chinese are so focused on their booming economy, they're going to do everything to keep NK from doing anything stupid and disrupting the area. China retains an interest in Taiwan, but they'll bide their time as they have for decades. In a few short years, after their econonmy stabilizes, they'll be strong enough to take it not matter how much the US objects.

Here's an article that lays out what's really happening in South Korea, BTW:

S. Korea: U.S. wants to pull out a third of troops

"Washington seeks to withdraw 12,500 troops by end of 2005"

"About 7,000 U.S. forces and their families would also move from the sprawling Yongsan Base in downtown Seoul to an expanded facility south of the capital by 2006."

"Washington said earlier this month it plans to redeploy 3,600 South Korea-based troops to Iraq in the coming months. According to Kim, they would be included in the overall troop reduction. The planned U.S. troop reduction is seen as part of Washington's global effort to realign its forces so they can better respond to emergencies worldwide."

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 10:21 AM

Sorry, that last was from me. Someone ate my cookie.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 05:18 AM

dianavan:

"Apparently, North and South are hoping for re-unification, wishing the U.S. would stop meddling. The U.S., of course, wants to maintain their strategic presence in the area."

Well, the North might want reunification... under their terms.

And I am glad that you are so knowledgable on what the US wants. I think that we would, of course, withdraw in an instant if we did not have treaty commitments and feel that the UN resolutions amd ceasefire were worth upholding.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:18 PM

beardedbruce - Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the U.S. only wants to honour their treaty commitments or uphold the U.N. resolutions and ceasefire.   
I don't really know what that entails but...

somehow I have the impression that the U.S. doesn't give a shit what the U.N. has to say but will use them to mop up their messes whenever they can.

You make it sound as if they were there on behalf of the U.N.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:38 PM

Read your history.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:43 PM

I believe that they are technically there on behalf of the U.N. The Korean was was the first U.N. sponsored defense action, if I remember correctly.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 10:59 AM

Yes, the UNSC has asked all member nations to assist South Korea to repel the invaders. Sixteeen member nations have sent combat troops, the largest foreign contingent coming from the USA.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 11:05 AM

Text of the UNSC resolution from June 27, 1950

BTW, the USSR at that time boykotted the UNSC, but they learned quickly that attending and vetoing was better for them.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 03:32 AM

beardedbruce - you can't expect me to know the history of every country in the world. Shall we have a quiz on Canadian history?

Back to the topic of interest - I wonder why Koreans for unification always refer to the American forces and not the U.N. forces?

Interesting, too, that Korean troops which were destined for Iraq are now being held back.

Subject: RE: What's up with Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 03:47 AM

dianavan:

tha canadians were there, too.

if one wants to discuss the n. koreans, one needs to read back to at least the late 1940's. "those who have no past are doomed to repeat it."

because the american are 'evil' to them just as they seem to be to you. the un is 'good', so they don't want to bring up the fact that the un is what is there, not just the americans.

most foreign contigents ( gb exepted) will not go into any area where there is active fighting. that is almost a un rule. and the us is there under un auspices, in spite of all the lies that some people seem to repeat here.