|
28 May 04 - 10:13 PM (#1196398) Subject: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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! |
|
28 May 04 - 10:28 PM (#1196408) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Rapparee 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.) |
|
28 May 04 - 11:00 PM (#1196422) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: GUEST,Art Thieme 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 |
|
28 May 04 - 11:06 PM (#1196425) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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... |
|
28 May 04 - 11:54 PM (#1196451) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 12:42 PM (#1196536) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 12:52 PM (#1196541) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce "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. |
|
29 May 04 - 12:58 PM (#1196546) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 01:03 PM (#1196548) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce "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. |
|
29 May 04 - 01:07 PM (#1196550) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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... |
|
29 May 04 - 01:12 PM (#1196553) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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? |
|
29 May 04 - 01:12 PM (#1196554) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: McGrath of Harlow 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? |
|
29 May 04 - 01:24 PM (#1196563) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 02:55 PM (#1196605) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: McGrath of Harlow "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... |
|
29 May 04 - 02:58 PM (#1196609) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 03:06 PM (#1196618) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce I have no confidence in the intelligence of any head of state. |
|
29 May 04 - 03:07 PM (#1196620) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter Well you've got me there. |
|
29 May 04 - 03:09 PM (#1196621) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 8-{E |
|
29 May 04 - 03:52 PM (#1196647) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick "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? |
|
29 May 04 - 04:14 PM (#1196660) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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... |
|
29 May 04 - 04:21 PM (#1196664) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 04:23 PM (#1196665) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick "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... |
|
29 May 04 - 04:29 PM (#1196676) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce The Iranians had a way to move armies through mine fields- just put a bunch of civilians out from, and march forward... |
|
29 May 04 - 04:34 PM (#1196686) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 04:35 PM (#1196689) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 04:37 PM (#1196693) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce And when the Japanese do not allow us to fly out of Japan? ( remember those IRBMs...) |
|
29 May 04 - 04:41 PM (#1196696) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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) |
|
29 May 04 - 04:48 PM (#1196702) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 05:02 PM (#1196712) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 05:23 PM (#1196720) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 05:26 PM (#1196722) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce Even if it means a half-dozen nukes in their cities? |
|
29 May 04 - 05:29 PM (#1196724) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 05:32 PM (#1196727) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 06:10 PM (#1196747) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: McGrath of Harlow So long as planning for the worst doesn't involve launching a pre-emptive war on the basis of flawed intelligence... |
|
29 May 04 - 06:32 PM (#1196761) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 06:40 PM (#1196765) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 06:42 PM (#1196767) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Peace 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 07:01 PM (#1196775) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick "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. |
|
29 May 04 - 07:08 PM (#1196780) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 07:11 PM (#1196783) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: McGrath of Harlow "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. |
|
29 May 04 - 07:45 PM (#1196804) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Peace 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 |
|
29 May 04 - 07:58 PM (#1196809) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 08:06 PM (#1196815) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Peace 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)? |
|
29 May 04 - 08:13 PM (#1196819) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 08:26 PM (#1196823) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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/ |
|
29 May 04 - 08:36 PM (#1196825) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: McGrath of Harlow "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? |
|
29 May 04 - 08:48 PM (#1196836) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Peace 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 08:50 PM (#1196837) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Peace 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? |
|
29 May 04 - 08:50 PM (#1196838) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 09:02 PM (#1196840) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: GUEST,artbrooks on vacation 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 09:15 PM (#1196848) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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? |
|
29 May 04 - 09:17 PM (#1196851) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 May 04 - 09:19 PM (#1196853) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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] |
|
29 May 04 - 10:48 PM (#1196874) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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,). |
|
29 May 04 - 10:58 PM (#1196880) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce that would work... but can we drop a few in my neighborhood, too? |
|
30 May 04 - 02:13 PM (#1197160) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick "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. |
|
30 May 04 - 02:55 PM (#1197183) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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... |
|
30 May 04 - 03:04 PM (#1197191) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick 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. |
|
30 May 04 - 05:59 PM (#1197312) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Peace ±»ÖäÁRµÄ±±³¯õrÈËÔÚʹÿ‚€ÈË쳌ÀÅ¡£ |
|
30 May 04 - 05:59 PM (#1197314) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Peace Well, that should start a shooting war. |
|
30 May 04 - 09:02 PM (#1197414) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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? |
|
30 May 04 - 09:25 PM (#1197419) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick 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? |
|
30 May 04 - 09:36 PM (#1197423) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
31 May 04 - 02:49 AM (#1197502) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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. |
|
31 May 04 - 06:20 AM (#1197540) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: GUEST,Sledge 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 |
|
31 May 04 - 11:30 AM (#1197647) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
31 May 04 - 08:16 PM (#1198009) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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? |
|
31 May 04 - 11:29 PM (#1198135) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Peace dianavan: They did. Cost thousands of lives. Don't know if it's outright ownership, but at least a long-term lease. |
|
31 May 04 - 11:40 PM (#1198137) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Little Hawk They seem to be having a hard time establishing undisputed ownership. |
|
01 Jun 04 - 12:03 AM (#1198140) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
02 Jun 04 - 05:21 AM (#1198335) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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... |
|
02 Jun 04 - 07:57 AM (#1198404) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Teribus 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. |
|
02 Jun 04 - 04:13 PM (#1198757) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: GUEST,Blackcatter 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. |
|
02 Jun 04 - 04:55 PM (#1198772) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
02 Jun 04 - 05:14 PM (#1198778) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce "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? |
|
03 Jun 04 - 01:13 AM (#1198965) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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. |
|
03 Jun 04 - 05:25 AM (#1199047) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce "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. |
|
03 Jun 04 - 05:34 AM (#1199050) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Teribus 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. |
|
05 Jun 04 - 03:28 AM (#1200828) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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. |
|
05 Jun 04 - 11:02 AM (#1200939) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
06 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM (#1201398) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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. |
|
06 Jun 04 - 03:45 PM (#1201435) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Strick "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. |
|
06 Jun 04 - 03:59 PM (#1201439) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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? |
|
07 Jun 04 - 10:21 AM (#1201970) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: GUEST 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." |
|
07 Jun 04 - 10:21 AM (#1201971) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: GUEST,Strick Sorry, that last was from me. Someone ate my cookie. |
|
08 Jun 04 - 05:18 AM (#1202558) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
08 Jun 04 - 08:18 PM (#1203093) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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. |
|
08 Jun 04 - 08:38 PM (#1203102) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce Read your history. |
|
08 Jun 04 - 08:43 PM (#1203108) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Blackcatter 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. |
|
09 Jun 04 - 10:59 AM (#1203584) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
09 Jun 04 - 11:05 AM (#1203587) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
10 Jun 04 - 03:32 AM (#1204140) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: dianavan 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. |
|
10 Jun 04 - 03:47 AM (#1204146) Subject: RE: What's up with Korea? From: beardedbruce 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. |