View Full Version : North Korea fires on South Korea
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T2
Now is a REALLY bad time for something like this. If North Korea is intentionally trying to provoke an incident to determine US reaction are they doing it in concert with someone else, say Iran? This could be an attempt to see how thin we will spread our forces.
Off Road
11-23-2010, 02:17
Hell, the North Koreans attacked and sank a South Korean ship - if that wasn't enough to elicit a real response what's a few hundred artillery rounds between neighbors?!?!
Gentleman, I am currently stationed in South Korea. It may surprise you to know that they have been taking pot shots a crossed the DMZ a few times recently. On and off for a few months. This is a big deal. However, it more than likely it will take more than even this for us to get involved. At this time I would say NK is trying to see how much they can get away with. Thanks for your interest though, I wonder sometimes if people remember we are still here.
skylinedrive
11-23-2010, 04:41
Stay safe 35NCO! And thank you for your service!
Perhaps a test of not only our response but the world community as a whole.
It is also not unusual for a country like the DPRK to act like this during periods of internal power shifts to create a 'perceived threat' which allows those in power to keep the focus of the people on the 'external threat' with a sense of solidarity as they assume the reigns of control. Nothing like a little good old saber rattling to do that.
I would also worry about the internal shifting of power within the military at the same time - the 'favored' status among the military hierarchy between the incoming and outgoing leaders; the old and the new; the elderly and the young. It is not unusual for militaries to 'flex their muscles' a bit during such times to gain favor as a 'trusted' advisor to the head of government as well as to support their 'manufactured threat' from the outside. All sides in this current 'kimchi melodrama' are experienced actors when it comes to the antics of the DPRK - but such a ploy is always dangerous as the 'unknown idiot' factor can always come into play at some point and the situation can rapidly spin out of control.
And I am being a bit jaded here, but it is feasible with such a gang of loons to do something like this incident as a way for the old man to provide an OJT situation for his son - a sort of NCA-level JRX to teach him how to tweek the nose of the imperialist beast and show the DPRK NCA that the new leader is the leader and recognized as such among the world leaders when he agrees to wind down the exercise. Who knows?
Hold the line and stay safe...
Richard :munchin
Gentleman, I am currently stationed in South Korea. It may surprise you to know that they have been taking pot shots a crossed the DMZ a few times recently. On and off for a few months. This is a big deal. However, it more than likely it will take more than even this for us to get involved. At this time I would say NK is trying to see how much they can get away with. Thanks for your interest though, I wonder sometimes if people remember we are still here.
Damn right we remember, and thank you.
Seems like I've been waiting on the balloon to go up since I was a baby.
We've still got 2/3d's of the Axis of Evil to deal with...
Richard,
I think you hit the nail on the head. It does really show how crazy they actually are though. We know they are starving their soldiers, the world knows. So from a strategic standpoint, how long does NK really think they could endure a full combat operation? I would think that blitz would slow down rather quick. It is starting to get cold here now and there is only so many passes soldiers could make in this terrain to travel south. You are right, what they have to gain is “saber rattling” and attempting to show they still have “power”. Dig the “kimchi melodrama”…my first laugh for this chaos. Thanks.
The OJT situation for Kim junior is one that I've been seeing in a good deal of analysis this morning. Unbelievable that a nation would play with people's lives just to provide that...but this is North Korea, after all. What makes sense there doesn't make sense anywhere else.
Stay safe, 35NCO. You guys haven't been forgotten over there.
35NCO,
We absolutely remember all of you, Thank You for your service and stay safe.
TrapLine
11-23-2010, 09:12
35NCO, thank you for holding the line. You are not forgotten. Stay safe on Freedom's Frontier.
CombatMuffin
11-23-2010, 09:36
LINK (http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-korean-dictatorinwaiting-linked-to-deadly-artillery-attack-20101123-185p1.html)
I agree that N.Korea is testing international response. Already on several news sources like the BBC, the one I linked above and the one by provided by rdret1, they specifically mention these attacks come after a visit by an American scientist to their uranium enrichment facility.
Sounds like a twisted PR stunt to show the world the new leader can play in the big leagues.
THIS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112206571.html) article seems to suggest they are trying to put the U.S. in a politically sour position, while they shell south korea. "I remove some fuel rods, you tell the world you don't have anything against me."
Did two tours in Korea....the first during the Gulf War. We exchanged gun fire then, but the world knew nothing about it because the focus was on the Gulf. Folks seem to forget that the Korean War never ended and exchange of rounds has been common place since 1953. This time, however, is at a whole new level.
35NCO stay as safe as you can over there.
Masochist
11-23-2010, 10:18
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T2
Now is a REALLY bad time for something like this. If North Korea is intentionally trying to provoke an incident to determine US reaction are they doing it in concert with someone else, say Iran? This could be an attempt to see how thin we will spread our forces.
Very good point.
I liken the DPRK to a small child. First he says a curse word and his parents let him get away with it. Next he starts throwing things, having little temper tantrums. Next he hits the neighbor's child and gets away with it. All provocative actions to try to get a response and see how far he can go without being punished. How long 'til junior (and friends?) burn down the house? Just because you're a small child doesn't mean you can't be a dangerous one.
Stay safe 35NCO and all over there. A buddy of mine starts his military career there in a few weeks.
DevilSide
11-23-2010, 10:28
Stay safe 35NCO, and thank you for your service.
It may surprise you to know that they have been taking pot shots a crossed the DMZ a few times recently.
No it doesn't. Potshots, fire fights, border incursions and attacks have been going on at that DMZ and South since the armistice. Tunnels, the NKPA Olympic swim teams and the intelligence war in S. Korea isn't unknown either.
The 1950s hijack of a South Korean airliner to the murders at the JSA bridge in 1976 till now the list of even just publicly released incidents isn't all that short.
The cold and snow isn't a reprieve from the possibility of attack. I believe they proved that once. The North lives in the worst of the cold and snow and the hard ground just provides better surfaces for heavy vehicles. Much better than soft spring and summer rice paddies or slugging through the rains.
The questions in an attack isn't how long they can endure, it's how fast can they advance still maintaining their supply lines and how far they reach before their attack stalls. It's also how much preparation they've accomplished in the South.
The North is always testing, the NKPA like being a pain in the ass and they're good at it, however clownish it may seem at times they do it for a reason.
This incident leads me to wonder what may be going on elsewhere, seems like a big show and, right now at least, not much effort or expense on their side.
A quick google shows plenty of incident info,
just paste the links in the web address window.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30004.pdf
guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/23/north-korea-yeonpyeong-island-incidents-map
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea
globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident
country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9643.html
Take care.
incarcerated
11-23-2010, 12:05
This comes the day after South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae Young said that Seoul may consider hosting U.S. tactical nuclear weapons.
Not to worry: POTUS can handle it. After all, he has Hillary Clinton to help him. She’s brilliant.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::(
Thanks for your interest though, I wonder sometimes if people remember we are still here.
I remember. My father fought in the Korean War, he was a combat engineer with the 25th ID 65th Eng Div IIRC (Tropic Lightning), and I often think of you folks holding that line. Stay safe, you are not forgotten.
The Reaper
11-23-2010, 19:05
I remember. My father fought in the Korean War, he was a combat engineer with the 25th ID 65th Eng Div IIRC (Tropic Lightning), and I often think of you folks holding that line. Stay safe, you are not forgotten.
L:
The 65th Combat Engineer Battalion was part of the 25th ID when I was there back in the early 80s.
I had a buddy assigned to the 65th. Good unit. Thanks to your father.
TR
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/23/condemns-north-korean-attack-south/
Now that the hand wringing, parental no-no style finger pointing and requisite denunciations are out of the way, we will see if anything is actually done. China refused to cooperate with the last request for sanctions. If we put enough pressure on them this time maybe they will allow it. From several stories I have read, it seems there may be a theory that this is to divert attention from the possible nuclear weapon capabilites of NK. That would really be a scary scenario. I think the Kims are all certifiable and the idea of them having a nuclear capability raises serious concerns.
craigepo
11-24-2010, 10:24
I would like to see an official count of how many times North Korea has done something stupid since 1953. I would also like to know how many times US troops have gotten spun-up, sitting on a tarmac, because the North Koreans have massed troops on the border, threatened an invasion of South Korea, etc. etc.
Bill Clinton made this worse, by throwing money at the problem.
My take: Kim Jong Il is getting ready to need something from somebody, somewhere. So, he does something aggressive/hostile/stupid(knowing nobody will retaliate), then shows up at a bargaining table with a list of demands. The panty-waste negotiators are afraid to do anything (he just shot artillery rounds!), so they give him half of what he demands. Everything is now quiet for another 6 months-1 year, then we do it again.
Kim Jong Il will continue to do this, his kid will do the same thing. A bully is a bully: they will do what they can get away with until somebody punches them in the face.
I wish Obama would take a page from Reagan's treatment of Qadaffi. One laser-guided bomb in the house ended a whole lot of banter.
Bad Tolz
11-24-2010, 16:01
Richard said:
"Perhaps a test of not only our response but the world community as a whole.
It is also not unusual for a country like the DPRK to act like this during periods of internal power shifts to create a 'perceived threat' which allows those in power to keep the focus of the people on the 'external threat' with a sense of solidarity as they assume the reigns of control. Nothing like a little good old saber rattling to do that.
I would also worry about the internal shifting of power within the military at the same time - the 'favored' status among the military hierarchy between the incoming and outgoing leaders; the old and the new; the elderly and the young. It is not unusual for militaries to 'flex their muscles' a bit during such times to gain favor as a 'trusted' advisor to the head of government as well as to support their 'manufactured threat' from the outside. All sides in this current 'kimchi melodrama' are experienced actors when it comes to the antics of the DPRK - but such a ploy is always dangerous as the 'unknown idiot' factor can always come into play at some point and the situation can rapidly spin out of control.
And I am being a bit jaded here, but it is feasible with such a gang of loons to do something like this incident as a way for the old man to provide an OJT situation for his son - a sort of NCA-level JRX to teach him how to tweek the nose of the imperialist beast and show the DPRK NCA that the new leader is the leader and recognized as such among the world leaders when he agrees to wind down the exercise. Who knows"
Richard's to the point analyis is the best I've seen.
L:
The 65th Combat Engineer Battalion was part of the 25th ID when I was there back in the early 80s.
I had a buddy assigned to the 65th. Good unit. Thanks to your father.
TR
Thanks Sir, he was very proud of his service and his unit. I have one of his jackets with all of his patches and such, I never wear it outside but hold it close. I have to find his DD214, I think he briefly served with a unit of black soldiers for a short period of time...
The Reaper
11-24-2010, 18:20
Thanks Sir, he was very proud of his service and his unit. I have one of his jackets with all of his patches and such, I never wear it outside but hold it close. I have to find his DD214, I think he briefly served with a unit of black soldiers for a short period of time...
The 24th Infantry Regiment (or Deuce Four), a former Buffalo Soldier unit, was one of the assigned 25th ID regiments during that period. They had some marginal leadership from white commanders and developed a bad reputation as a unit that ran under fire, or bugged out. In reality, they fought as well as most other units when competently led.
He may have been attached to them at some point as part of their Divisional support.
TR
The 24th Infantry Regiment (or Deuce Four), a former Buffalo Soldier unit, was one of the assigned 25th ID regiments during that period. They had some marginal leadership from white commanders and developed a bad reputation as a unit that ran under fire, or bugged out. In reality, they fought as well as most other units when competently led.
He may have been attached to them at some point as part of their Divisional support.
TR
That sounds very familiar, actually I think you are correct (big surprise :D ) He said the guys he was with were fine Soldiers and he never had any issues.
Thanks for the info, TR.
Nightfall
11-24-2010, 21:03
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/art...s/20101115.aspx
"The Chinese Plan To Crush American Power In Korea
November 15, 2010: U.S. military planners have discovered that China's current arsenal of non-nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles could probably knock out five of six major American air bases in Japanese and South Korea. Oops. To make matters worse, this has become an issue as North Korea stumbles towards political collapse, and China indicates that it will assume control in the north if that happens. South Korea believes it should move north to deal with a collapse, and this plan is becoming a contentious issue with China.
It's long been obvious that China planned a similar tactic against Taiwan. Wargames and detailed analysis of possible Chinese attacks on Taiwan, indicated that the basic Chinese missile attack strategy might work, and do so within days. The key to such a blitz is the 1,300 Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles. Most of these are based on the coast opposite Taiwan (180 kilometers away across the Taiwan Straits). The Chinese missiles carry one ton or half ton conventional (high explosive or cluster bomb) warheads, and were expected to be used to try and cripple Taiwanese air force and navy, as well as attacking headquarters and communications targets. Almost simultaneously, China would try to invade with airborne and amphibious forces.
Without those missiles, Taiwans's superior air and naval forces would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the invasion force to cross the straits. The wargames play out various targeting strategies, and defensive moves the Taiwanese could take. In most cases, the Chinese succeed. The barrage of missiles do serious damage to Taiwanese air and naval forces, giving Chinese air and naval forces an opportunity to get ground forces ashore.
China could use many of these missiles against Japanese and South Korean targets, although many of the missiles would have to be moved to new firing positions first. That would probably be noticed by the Americans, or Taiwanese. If North Korea showed signs of political collapse, and China began moving its shorter range ballistic missiles north, American commanders would have to prepare for the worst.
The U.S. has land based Patriot missile systems that fire the PAC-3 anti-missile missile, as well as the ship based Aegis system. But even with these defenses, the Chinese still have a good shot at winning a quick victory. Or at least crippling American and South Korean air power as Chinese troops occupy North Korea."
I suspect however that this is sort of a non-issue as China has too much invested in the US and makes entirely too much money off of our consumers to really push the issue. I'm also not sure I agree with the assesment of "Taiwans's superior air and naval forces", but I'm not an authority on SE Asia.
incarcerated
11-25-2010, 02:24
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/north-korea-reportedly-warns-of-more-attacks-2010-11-24
North Korea reportedly warns of more attacks
Nov. 24, 2010, 9:59 p.m. EST
By Michael Kitchen LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- North Korea warned Thursday it would launch more attacks on South Korea if its southern neighbor makes more "reckless military provocations," according to a Reuters report citing North Korean state media. The report quoted a statement from the North Korean military as saying Pyongyang "will wage second and even third rounds of attacks without any hesitation, if warmongers in South Korea make reckless military provocations again...."
CombatMuffin
11-25-2010, 09:27
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11838750
South Korean defence minister resigns over deadly clash
"South Korea's defence minister has resigned amid criticism of his handling of North Korea's shelling of an island near their disputed maritime border.....
...The government also said it was changing its rules of engagement to allow it to respond more forcefully to similar incidents. The old rules have been criticised as too passive."
Im all for the hope that this doesn't have to escalate to a major conflict, since it will have repercussions far beyond just North and South Korea, but the way things are going, one cannot be too optimistic.
I believe this would trigger a full scale war. I'm not certain we are prepared for this as we are already stretched too thin.
I would think we could spare a few birds and bombs. That's just me.
It would eventually require boots on the ground when the North comes rushing across the DMZ. I'm not certain we can stop them with what we have there at the moment.
Not to argue, but we wouldn't necessarily need boots on the ground, would we? How many boots did we have on the ground at Hiroshima?
That would be political suicide for any president who goes to that extreme in this day and age of political correctness.
Not that inconvenient when you have a POTUS who has already basically committed political suicide.
Screw politics. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked. We gotta drive into the wall sometime; we're bound to crash eventually with all this asskissing, patronization and mollification of our sworn enemies.
Enemies are to be killed, not woven into a political scheme.
IMO.
Do you realize the international outcry that would be the result of such a extreme action? It's a much different world than what it was in 1945. Also, I am willing to bet that POTUS is reelected. By the way, I did not vote as I did not like either candidate. Not much else for me to contribute in this thread. Time to get some bird.
It's a much different world because we changed and starting putting up with BS that we shouldn't have put up with.
That's why you and I live in the United States of Berkeley, now.
Happy T-bird Day to you and yours, Chip.B!
On edit, how can a man have conviction, but not vote? Can't fathom that one.
(Incidentally, I'm not a betting man, but I'll go a case of beer and take whoever runs against BOH in '12.)
Dragon_Soldier
11-25-2010, 10:30
I am afraid the situation in Korea is a little more complex than to simply be handled with a nuke or two. Take out Pyongyang and, yes, Kim Jong-Il would be deposed. But which General would rise to succeed him? The DPRK's leaders have long used the threat of United States agression to keep their people in line--a nuke would only make them right in the eyes of their people, and the fallout would only serve as a constant reminder of the American threat.
Winning hearts and minds is already difficult enough with a people so brainwashed, but to reinforce their beliefs would make that mission impossible. So while a nuclear strike would effectively decapitate the current regime, it would most likely lead to an uprising of the entire North Korean people and ruin any hopes of a unified peninsula.
My .02 based on my brief stint there.
I am afraid the situation in Korea is a little more complex than to simply be handled with a nuke or two. Take out Pyongyang and, yes, Kim Jong-Il would be deposed. But which General would rise to succeed him? The DPRK's leaders have long used the threat of United States agression to keep their people in line--a nuke would only make them right in the eyes of their people, and the fallout would only serve as a constant reminder of the American threat.
Winning hearts and minds is already difficult enough with a people so brainwashed, but to reinforce their beliefs would make that mission impossible. So while a nuclear strike would effectively decapitate the current regime, it would most likely lead to an uprising of the entire North Korean people and ruin any hopes of a unified peninsula.
My .02 based on my brief stint there.
With what would they uprise? Numchuks? Outside a few big cities, that country is totally dark at night, because they can't even pay for lightbulbs.
I figure their Order of Battle after a multiple nuke strike would be something like a few SKS's, a couple spinning back kicks and a bunch of white flags.
I'm not a paranoid warmonger; I'm literally convinced that we need to take proactive, drastic steps against NK, Iran and Syria now.
By "whatever means necessary" to quote a well-known activist.
:)
incarcerated
11-25-2010, 12:27
What makes people think talking and placating NK will turn out any diffrent in the end.
Because Hillary Clinton is our Secretary of State, and we’ll probably give them another nuclear reactor as a sign of good will. Gosh, it bought us 15 years of peace the last time we did it, back when she was the Co-President of the United States. If we set a good example for them, they will behave themselves.
Because Hillary Clinton is our Secretary of State, and we’ll probably give them another nuclear reactor as a sign of good will. Gosh, it bought us 15 years of peace the last time we did it, back when she was the Co-President of the United States. If we set a good example for them, they will behave themselves.
lol
As much as everyone likes to talk trash about "nuking" someone, realistically, that would not be a feasible option these days IMO. There are too many rogue or near rogue states who have access to nuclear weapons. China is one of the main supporters of NK and would surely feel as if they needed to retaliate on their behalf. We are still not sure what Iran's capabilities are but they are also a major ally of NK. Russia may be drawn into it as well with their ties to China and NK. An act of that magnitude would be a lose-lose situation. It would make the old cold war threats become a reality.
As much as everyone likes to talk trash about "nuking" someone, realistically, that would not be a feasible option these days IMO. There are too many rogue or near rogue states who have access to nuclear weapons. China is one of the main supporters of NK and would surely feel as if they needed to retaliate on their behalf. We are still not sure what Iran's capabilities are but they are also a major ally of NK. Russia may be drawn into it as well with their ties to China and NK. An act of that magnitude would be a lose-lose situation. It would make the old cold war threats become a reality.
I'm not "talking trash" about it, anymore than I'd be talking trash about putting two nine mils into a bad guy in a house. It's a tool and a weapon, not just a threat.
Look, we're gonna appease these assholes 'til the camel's all the way in the tent, and we're in the sandstorm.
We're almost there, now.
We need to quit dipping curtsies to these bastards and stand up and fight like we've got balls.
Like, you said, though-it's just my opinion.
It's a tool and a weapon, not just a threat.This comment is reminiscent of Eisenhower. (And, FWIW, I agree.)
IMO, QP redret1's central point about what is realistically possible is correct.
However, reality is a construct--especially when it comes to politics. Eventually, the United States is going to fight a war during which we either inflict or suffer horrendous loss of life.
For too long, we've had political leadership that has not found the time to talk bluntly about the conditions under which such a conflict would be necessary nor about what such a war would entail.:confused:
As a nation, it behooves us to have these types of conversations now. We simply cannot afford to have the type of lackluster debate that we had in 2002.
My $0.02.
This comment is reminiscent of Eisenhower. (And, FWIW, I agree.)
IMO, QP redret1's central point about what is realistically possible is correct.
However, reality is a construct--especially when it comes to politics. Eventually, the United States is going to fight a war during which we either inflict or suffer horrendous loss of life.
For too long, we've had political leadership that has not found the time to talk bluntly about the conditions under which such a conflict would be necessary nor about what such a war would entail.:confused:
As a nation, it behooves us to have these types of conversations now. We simply cannot afford to have the type of lackluster debate that we had in 2002.
My $0.02.
Makes sense. As usual. :D
For too long, we've had political leadership that has not found the time to talk bluntly about the conditions under which such a conflict would be necessary nor about what such a war would entail.:confused:
As a nation, it behooves us to have these types of conversations now. We simply cannot afford to have the type of lackluster debate that we had in 2002.
My $0.02.
I agree Sigaba. The MSM keeps letting bits and pieces slip about what is going on. From tunnels under our own border where terrorists get into the country, to multiple global threats to our national security, to American's perceptions of TSA policies; Americans are starting to ask questions about just what we as a nation are doing or planning to do. The administration is doing a poor job at hiding behind the curtain. They need to publicly lay out the many threats that are facing us now in no uncertain terms. Then they need to appear competent at handling those threats. The TSA debacle and others like it just make them look foolish. The administration does not need to expose their entire game plan, but they do need to let the citizens know they at least have one and give the appearance that they are acting to counter any and all threats competently and aggressively.
Nevell Chamberlin said much the same thing in the late 1930's. All it did was delay the war and let hitler get more powerful and cost 10 MILLION innocent people to go to the gas chambers. (6 million jews, 4 million gypsies, homosexuals mentally ill etc) Some times you just have to step up to the plate and do what needs to be done.
This is true, preventative medicine makes sense, although there are a few differences, North Korea just isn't that geographically significant, they aren't Germany in the middle of Europe, nor are they Iraq sitting smack dab in the center of the Middle East. They can get as powerful as they want, they are not taking China, if they could take over the South, the world would isolate them even further. They don't have the navy, to project force The likely outcome is there is a bloody coup at some point the regime collapses and the Koreas reunite a la East and West Germany.
Does this mean we should appease them, and reward them for aggression, no, the trump card here is nuclear proliferation, especially if they figure out a delivery system. We originally fought in Korea to stop the spread of Communism, that world has changed. While we should honor treaties with allies, IMHO the South Koreans need to cowboy up first, and take the lead in defending themselves against the bully, instead of having Dad solve your problem.
Frankly we have seen this movie before, the North will commit an attack on the south, the South will hit back with lesser intensity and issue warnings, The US will say China needs to police North Korea, and then we will spend a lot of money on joint naval exercises with the South Koreans. Rinse, Repeat, Repeat.
my $.02
This is true, preventative medicine makes sense, although there are a few differences, North Korea just isn't that geographically significant, they aren't Germany in the middle of Europe, nor are they Iraq sitting smack dab in the center of the Middle East. They can get as powerful as they want, they are not taking China, if they could take over the South, the world would isolate them even further. They don't have the navy, to project force The likely outcome is there is a bloody coup at some point the regime collapses and the Koreas reunite a la East and West Germany.
Does this mean we should appease them, and reward them for aggression, no, the trump card here is nuclear proliferation, especially if they figure out a delivery system. We originally fought in Korea to stop the spread of Communism, that world has changed. While we should honor treaties with allies, IMHO the South Koreans need to cowboy up first, and take the lead in defending themselves against the bully, instead of having Dad solve your problem.
Frankly we have seen this movie before, the North will commit an attack on the south, the South will hit back with lesser intensity and issue warnings, The US will say China needs to police North Korea, and then we will spend a lot of money on joint naval exercises with the South Koreans. Rinse, Repeat, Repeat.my $.02
You sure about that?
The only future that looks certain to me is the denigration of respect our enemies have for us due to the weakness our administrative leadership continues to show.
BTW, have you ever worked with ROKs, especially the ones out of Bupyeong?
They are cowboyed up.
EX-Gold Falcon
11-26-2010, 16:16
A nuclear capacity is only one of the arrows in N. Koreas quiver.
What is often overlooked, is their extensive chemical and biological weapon stocks.
Unclassified estimates of the chemical weapons (CW) arsenal are imprecise, but the consensus is that the Korean People’s Army (KPA) possesses 2,500-5,000 tons, including mustard, phosgene, blood agents, sarin, tabun and V-agents (persistent nerve agents). The stockpile does not appear to be increasing but is already sufficient to inflict massive civilian casualties on South Korea. The North’s CW can be delivered with long-range artillery, multiple rocket launchers, FROGs (free rocket over ground), ballistic missiles, aircraft and naval vessels.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/167-north-koreas-chemical-and-biological-weapons-programs.aspx
I have no doubt that there are members here who have access to more precise intel then what I found through Google.
Nevertheless, it is entirely plausable that N. Korea has envisioned a doomsday scenario with a WMD flavored Parthian shot. Say a couple of TAEPODONGs with CW payloads and targeted towards Japan, Hawaii and Alaska; all linked to a "deadmans" switch.
The point I am trying to make is that the DPRK does possess the (limited) capacity to strike back at the US. Diplomacy better damn well work, because the potential alternatives are unacceptable.
Just food for thought....
Travis
Green Light
11-26-2010, 16:19
Frankly we have seen this movie before, the North will commit an attack on the south, the South will hit back with lesser intensity and issue warnings, The US will say China needs to police North Korea, and then we will spend a lot of money on joint naval exercises with the South Koreans. Rinse, Repeat, Repeat.my $.02You sure about that?Yep, pretty sure. The US and others fall for it every 10 years or so. It's an old saw. The DRPK is masterful with playing this card. They always win this game.
A nuclear capacity is only one of the arrows in N. Koreas quiver.
What is often overlooked, is their extensive chemical and biological weapon stocks.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/167-north-koreas-chemical-and-biological-weapons-programs.aspx
I have no doubt that there are members here who have access to more precise intel then what I found through Google.
Nevertheless, it is entirely plausable that N. Korea has envisioned a doomsday scenario with a WMD flavored Parthian shot. Say a couple of TAEPODONGs with CW payloads and targeted towards Japan, Hawaii and Alaska; all linked to a "deadmans" switch.
The point I am trying to make is that the DPRK does possess the (limited) capacity to strike back at the US. Diplomacy better damn well work, because the potential alternatives are unacceptable.
Just food for thought....
Travis
Diplomacy has indeed worked since the DMZ was established; worked to allow the norks time to develop the capabilities you mention.
Won't further diplomacy just serve to give them time to develop weapons capable of rendering CONUS as a viable target? No reason for them to stop development... So, do we deploy tactical nukes one day when we wake up and they can hit Denver?
EX-Gold Falcon
11-26-2010, 17:20
Diplomacy has indeed worked since the DMZ was established; worked to allow the norks time to develop the capabilities you mention.
Won't further diplomacy just serve to give them time to develop weapons capable of rendering CONUS as a viable target? No reason for them to stop development... So, do we deploy tactical nukes one day when we wake up and they can hit Denver?
Please by all means, volunteer to press the button. Though I would advise you familiarize yourself with the potential consequences before doing so...
Travis
The only future that looks certain to me is the denigration of respect our enemies have for us due to the weakness our administrative leadership continues to show.
BTW, have you ever worked with ROKs, especially the ones out of Bupyeong?
They are cowboyed up.
Dusty,
I would certainly defer to your opinion of ROK troops, I have heard they are very tough, but I was actually referring to the South Korean leadership. As you know in a democracy , even with a capable military, the civilian leadership has to first have the sand to do what's right instead of easy/popular. IMHO the South Korean leadership has not displayed the hard heart required to pay the price for their security.
As for the denigration of respect from our enemies, Zero is certainly a cream puff in their eyes, however he is not America, consider the midterm results and 2012 isn't that far away. Iraq was a clear message to despots everywhere, America has the ability and will to come in, thrash your large army, and replace your regime with one of our choosing if we feel its in our best interest. All the despots in that region are survivors, they were reminded what we can do. If in time democracy is successful in Iraq it changes the balance of power and politics in that whole region, just like we did with Japan and Germany.
South Korea has prospered with democracy and industry since the war, they have the means, and as you mentioned the toughness to defend themselves, I'm not saying we shouldn't honor our word to our allies, just that if the South Korean government doesn't have the fire in the belly to combat blatant aggression, why waste one drop of American blood for this?
Please by all means, volunteer to press the button. Though I would advise you familiarize yourself with the potential consequences before doing so...
Travis
It's not that easy; I'm ineligible to apply for that position, or I would.
You may want to familiarize yourself with the potential consequences of continuing to allow our enemies to expand their military capabilities...and not only the Il klan.
Dusty,
I would certainly defer to your opinion of ROK troops, I have heard they are very tough, but I was actually referring to the South Korean leadership. As you know in a democracy , even with a capable military, the civilian leadership has to first have the sand to do what's right instead of easy/popular. IMHO the South Korean leadership has not displayed the hard heart required to pay the price for their security.
As for the denigration of respect from our enemies, Zero is certainly a cream puff in their eyes, however he is not America, consider the midterm results and 2012 isn't that far away. Iraq was a clear message to despots everywhere, America has the ability and will to come in, thrash your large army, and replace your regime with one of our choosing if we feel its in our best interest. All the despots in that region are survivors, they were reminded what we can do. If in time democracy is successful in Iraq it changes the balance of power and politics in that whole region, just like we did with Japan and Germany.
South Korea has prospered with democracy and industry since the war, they have the means, and as you mentioned the toughness to defend themselves, I'm not saying we shouldn't honor our word to our allies, just that if the South Korean government doesn't have the fire in the belly to combat blatant aggression, why waste one drop of American blood for this?
You make sense, and that's a good question.
I've gotta say, though-it's what the norks can do to the US later on down the road that offends my sense of rationality as to how we're dealing with them diplomatically at this juncture.
Not that I'm not concerned about the ROKs; we did, after all, put ourselves in the role of protector for that country.
It amazes me that in this day and age of global Communication. A place like NK exist. You would think the people would start a revolution. I heard he made his Son a General even thou he never served in the Military.
Imagine the uproar if Obama made Rev Wright a General. Or appointed his Mom secretary of Defense. We would think he lost his freakin mind. But over there it's just business as usual.
EX-Gold Falcon
11-26-2010, 17:58
It's not that easy; I'm ineligible to apply for that position, or I would.
You may want to familiarize yourself with the potential consequences of continuing to allow our enemies to expand their military capabilities...and not only the Il klan.
Japan, South Korea, Alaska and Hawaii.
If the deployment of tac-nukes are included in this discussion, then the sacrifice of one or more of the aforementioned locales has earned the right to be included as well.
Travis
Japan, South Korea, Alaska and Hawaii.
If the deployment of tac-nukes are included in this discussion, then the sacrifice of one or more of the aforementioned locales has earned the right to be included as well.
Travis
I think maybe you're considering nuclear payloads quite a bit larger than I am.
I'm not talking about taking out the enire Pacific rim, bro. Nor the DMZ.
Did we have to send all the Hawaiians into bomb shelters when we hit Nagasaki? Did we brief the Eskimos?
We could take out exactly what we needed to, and not even inconvenience Seoul.
Not all nukes are Death Stars.
Not all nukes are Death Stars.
So you would be willing to assume the risk of a nuclear strike on Seoul?
You speak as if these things just "happen" on their own. As if we could shut down North Korea before they could garner any response whatsoever. If they knew the game was up, God only knows what they wouldn't try.
Just my $.02...
I know that the current leadership will maintain the status quo based on historical action by the North Koreans. I know, as someone posted earlier, that we're stretched too thin to resource a ground assault; and I know we won't resort to nuclear attack to settle the latest iteration of saber-rattling.
I don't want innocent civilians to be killed in a generalized bomb attack; no sane person would. I'm not happy about the horrors of the Japan bombings.
But I have a gut feeling that it may be different during this episode of Ni Hao Kim Jung. The kid (-un) has zero military experience, and undoubtedly has inherited the megalomania of his father without the respect for the might of the U.S., and why not? We're no longer projecting might.
We need to teach Pyonyang not to jack with us, most ricky tick.
How else are we gonna do it?
EX-Gold Falcon
11-26-2010, 18:59
I think maybe you're considering nuclear payloads quite a bit larger than I am. I'm not talking about taking out the enire Pacific rim, bro. Nor the DMZ.
It's not the size that matters.
Did we have to send all the Hawaiians into bomb shelters when we hit Nagasaki? Did we brief the Eskimos?
Would you like to rewrite this for the sake of an equitable comparison or was it intentionally callus?
We could take out exactly what we needed to, and not even inconvenience Seoul. Not all nukes are Death Stars.
Dusty, I am simply trying to illuminate the very plausible consequences derivable from the deployment of any nuclear weapon, regardless of size; against North Korea.
Pulling the trigger is easy, living with it is not always so.
Travis
P.S. FYI, I am Native Hawaiian.
It's not the size that matters.Would you like to rewrite this for the sake of an equitable comparison or was it intentionally callus?
Dusty, I am simply trying to illuminate the very plausible consequences derivable from the deployment of any nuclear weapon, regardless of size; against North Korea.
Pulling the trigger is easy, living with it is not always so.
Travis
P.S. FYI, I am Native Hawaiian.
Who told you size don't matter? ;)
No, bro, it wouldn't be easy to live with. I don't even like to think about it.
But, and not just regarding NK, we have GOT to do SOMETHING soon other than be diplomatic, don't we?
What would you suggest?
(To answer your question: No, I'm not trying to be callus, I should have punctuated the "Eskimo" crack with a :D.)
EX-Gold Falcon
11-26-2010, 19:27
Who told you size don't matter? ;)
No, bro, it wouldn't be easy to live with. I don't even like to think about it.
But, and not just regarding NK, we have GOT to do SOMETHING soon other than be diplomatic, don't we?
What would you suggest?
HELLO CHINA!
The elephant in the living room is hard to ignore. In the grand scheme of things, there is NOTHING that the US can do to the DPRK, when compared to China's influence. Unless Beijing has an ulterior motive, then reigniting the Korean War is bad for business.
Their Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our State Dept are probable smoking their phones trying to deesculate this situation.
As of right now, I would prefer that the State Dept remains in the lead, while consulting with Defense for options.
(To answer your question: No, I'm not trying to be callus, I should have punctuated the "Eskimo" crack with a :D.)
Cool.
Travis
HELLO CHINA!
The elephant in the living room is hard to ignore. In the grand scheme of things, there is NOTHING that the US can do to the DPRK, when compared to China's influence. Unless Beijing has an ulterior motive, then reigniting the Korean War is bad for business.
Their Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our State Dept are probable smoking their phones trying to deesculate this situation.
As of right now, I would prefer that the State Dept remains in the lead, while consulting with Defense for options.
Cool.
Travis
Well. It's all in Hillary's hands, now. She'll know what's best.
:rolleyes:
So you would be willing to assume the risk of a nuclear strike on Seoul?
IIRC the North Koreans have never needed nukes to level Seoul within a few hours. Seoul is unfortunately only 35 miles from the border and the North Koreans are believed to have the largest concentration of artillery in the world along the DMZ.
This trump card has likely factored heavily into the decision cycle for both sides, if the balloon goes up the South Korean leadership knows their capital city, the hub of their industry, government, and culture, and home to at least a quarter of their population faces this threat. This possibility fosters both South Korean caution and North Korean audacity IMHO.
While I maintain, the South Koreans should take the lead for their security before we shed more US blood in their defense, if we faced this same proportionate dilemma back in the States, we might be wary too. Yet, the bullying will not stop and will likely get worse until South Korea makes a tough choice, or somehow the North Korean regime is destabilized or overthrown.
The Chinese influence in the region is undeniable. Even if it was in their interests to stifle North Korean aggression, if US nukes start going off in a country on their border, their response and concern would likely be similar to our own if the same thing happened along our own borders.
Green Light
11-26-2010, 21:49
In order for the DPRK to launch a massive artillery prep/pre-emptive strike they would necessarily tip their hand before it happened. This arty strike on the island was small potatoes and could easily be done without signalling their intent.
The US (if there is the will at the NCA) could preempt the preemption with surgical strikes of our own. The nuke option probably wouldn't be necessary.
IIRC, the DPRK has neither the warhead technology nor the delivery systems to make a nuke strike anything other than a exercise in suicide.
incarcerated
11-26-2010, 22:52
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/110486389.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UthPacyPE7iUiD3aPc: _Yyc:aUiPk87D_LPQL7PQLai_i8P77U
Jimmy Carter: For U.S., the hard or soft option on North Korea?
The North wants direct talks. Let's consider it. We can't expect to negotiate nuclear weapons away.
FORMER PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter, in the Washington Post
Last update: November 24, 2010 - 5:55 PM
No one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans. But it is possible that their recent revelation of uranium enrichment centrifuges and Pyongyang's shelling of a South Korean island Tuesday are designed to remind the world that they deserve respect in negotiations....
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/duped_in_north_korea_from_obam.html
Duped in North Korea: From Obama's Mentor to Jimmy Carter
November 26, 2010
By Paul Kengor
The North Korea situation is not going away. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the complexities of the situation. I've dealt with it since the early 1990s, beginning at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. I had few answers then, and still few today.
What I do know, however, is that much of the American left has been misled on North Korea since the very division of the peninsula in the early 1950s. The left has suffered two threats in particular -- call them "internal": First, there was the deception and manipulation by the communist left, which, by its nature, refused to openly acknowledge that it was communist and serving the Communist Party line. Second, there was dangerous self-delusion and gullibility among some leading Democrats. As to the first, there's the case of Frank Marshall Davis; on the second, there's Jimmy Carter.
As I've written here and elsewhere, Frank Marshall Davis was a mentor to Barack Obama and an actual CPUSA member. The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Davis about that association in 1956, under oath, where Davis pleaded the Fifth Amendment. No matter -- the next year, the Senate, in a report titled "Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States," definitively listed Davis as an "identified member of the Communist Party." (Click here to view the documents at my website.)
Only recently, with the declassification of Davis's 600-page FBI file, can we see the evidence. In my book, Dupes, on page 507, I reprint an FBI document that features Davis's Communist Party number: 47544.
As to the point of Korea, I found all the columns Davis wrote for the Honolulu Record, the CPUSA organ in Hawaii, in 1950. That was the period when Korea erupted into a hot war that killed tens of thousands of American boys, with the peninsula divided into a communist north and non-communist south.
Many American liberals/progressives were unsure where to stand on U.S. involvement, even as President Harry Truman, a Democrat, sent troops. For communists, however, this was a no-brainer: They wanted no U.S. involvement because they wanted all of Korea to be communist, following Red China's recent path. This was the Stalinist line, the Maoist line, and the worldwide communist line. Thus, American communists ridiculed the very idea of U.S. engagement as a McCarthyite manifestation of paranoid anti-communism, as an "inordinate fear" of communism, as U.S. imperialism, as Uncle Sam sticking his nose where it didn't belong, as...well, whatever worked.
For Frank Marshall Davis, this stance is evident in a February 9, 1950 piece he wrote for the Honolulu Record, where he accused President Truman of "manufacturing crises" for the sake of Big Business and U.S. imperialism. This was the standard party line for Davis. Most interesting about this piece, however, is how Davis applied the assertion to two countries that today remain our most persistent challenges: North Korea and Iran.
"Temporarily balked but not defeated, our dividend diplomats, with the willing hands of President Truman, went into the crisis-making business," wrote Davis. "If Molotov coughed, it threatened our 'security' in Iran. If Vishinsky laughed, we were 'endangered' in Korea."
This was, maintained Davis, a bunch of bluster, a phony "propaganda barrage" by Truman, as were the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the creation of NATO, all of which Davis (following Moscow's lead) adamantly opposed. "We manufacture crises so rapidly," claimed Davis, "that a new one is shoved in front of us before we can examine yesterday's or the one rushed in this morning."
And Korea, insisted Davis, was the latest such case.
How many liberals/progressives fell for this communist line? How many Americans communists pushed the line?
Well, without delineating which were liberals/progressives or communists, dupes or dupers, among those strongly against our Korea involvement were playwright Arthur Miller, the ACLU's Corliss Lamont, and Hollywood writers like Dalton Trumbo and the snarling Lillian Hellman.
The communist left didn't stop pushing this line until the north was firmly in communist hands. It has been a murderous dungeon ever since, run by two lunatics from the Kim family. These two men, of course, can't be trusted, which brings me to my second case, involving Jimmy Carter.
In June 1994, Carter visited North Korea. He was hosted by Kim Il-sung, a tyrant, who died mere days later. And yet, Carter reported that Kim was "vigorous, alert, [and] intelligent" and had engaged in "very free discussions with his ministers." Kim spearheaded a militantly atheistic regime, which jailed Christians; Carter, however, discovered a Kim "very friendly toward Christianity."
For the impressionable ex-president, Kim provided the full Potemkin village treatment. To say Carter was suckered is an understatement. He wrote this report:
"People are busy. They work 48 hours a week. ... We found Pyongyang to be a bustling city. The only difference is that during working hours there are very few people on the street. They all have jobs or go to school. And after working hours, they pack the department stores, which Rosalynn visited. I went in one of them. It's like Wal-Mart in American stores on a Saturday afternoon. They all walk around in there, and they seem in fairly good spirits. Pyongyang at night looks like Times Square. They are really heavily into bright neon lights and pictures and things like that."
Of course, in truth, North Korea is draped in darkness, as well-known satellite photos attest (click here). Worse, within just one year of this incredibly gullible appraisal by Carter, 10%-15% of the North Korean population (two to three million people) starved to death -- the worst famine in modern times.
Adding insult to injury, a few years after that, North Korea announced that it was a nuclear state, a direct violation of the "Agreed Framework" brokered by Carter in 1994. Then, Carter triumphantly assured us that "the crisis is over" -- words headlined by both the New York Times and Washington Post.
Needless to say, the crisis was far from over. And when George W. Bush, saddled with this agreement, which North Korea was clearly violating, declared the Kim regime part of an "axis of evil," Carter protested. "I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement," sniffed Carter.
No, it will take years before we can repair the damage done by Carter's mistakes, from North Korea to Iran.
I don't have the answer for resolving the North Korea situation, but I do know what hasn't helped. Jimmy Carter hasn't, and neither did the communist left, embodied by the likes of Frank Marshall Davis.
In both cases, America has been poorly served. It doesn't help that we've been duped, first by communists who concealed their loyalties and intentions from their liberal/progressive "friends" -- as Korea was split in two -- and then by the ever-present naïveté that has plagued Jimmy Carter's judgment for decades. Deception and delusion on the left have exacerbated an already complex situation.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
longrange1947
11-26-2010, 23:08
And now that China has warned the US not to send the carriers into the area what? :munchin
EX-Gold Falcon
11-27-2010, 00:35
In order for the DPRK to launch a massive artillery prep/pre-emptive strike they would necessarily tip their hand before it happened. This arty strike on the island was small potatoes and could easily be done without signalling their intent.
The US (if there is the will at the NCA) could preempt the preemption with surgical strikes of our own. The nuke option probably wouldn't be necessary.
IIRC, the DPRK has neither the warhead technology nor the delivery systems to make a nuke strike anything other than a exercise in suicide.
What does it take for people to look beyond nukes and recognize the other real threats that N. Korea possesss!?!?
Chemical and biological assets and the viable means to deploy them.
If the US hits the DPRK, then we had better be prepared to accept gas clouds wafering over Honolulu, Tokyo and Fairbanks.
This entire scenario has been played out in The Atlantic Magazine by SENIOR military and civilian leadership. They at least, were not so target fixated on nukes and had a holistic viewpoint.
Travis
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/110486389.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UthPacyPE7iUiD3aPc: _Yyc:aUiPk87D_LPQL7PQLai_i8P77U
Jimmy Carter: For U.S., the hard or soft option on North Korea?
The North wants direct talks. Let's consider it. We can't expect to negotiate nuclear weapons away.
FORMER PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter, in the Washington Post
Last update: November 24, 2010 - 5:55 PM
No one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans. But it is possible that their recent revelation of uranium enrichment centrifuges and Pyongyang's shelling of a South Korean island Tuesday are designed to remind the world that they deserve respect in negotiations....
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/duped_in_north_korea_from_obam.html
Duped in North Korea: From Obama's Mentor to Jimmy Carter
November 26, 2010
By Paul Kengor
The North Korea situation is not going away. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the complexities of the situation. I've dealt with it since the early 1990s, beginning at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. I had few answers then, and still few today.
.
Comparing Carter and Obama seems to be the fad these days, not that I disagree, it just seems funny to me for some reason. I guess because they both appear as totally inept and neither of them will admit it. They both think they are just misunderstood.
This entire scenario has been played out in The Atlantic Magazine by SENIOR military and civilian leadership. They at least, were not so target fixated on nukes and had a holistic viewpoint.With respect, if you're referring to a 2005 article in The Atlantic (available here (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2005/07/north-korea-the-war-game/4029/)), I don't think you're presenting the best evidence to support your argument. The Atlantic is a middle brow magazine with a left of center editorial focus. The publication habitually bowdlerizes arguments that direct military confrontation with America's adversaries may be necessary--especially if Republicans are the ones making those arguments. (That magazine's thoughtful analysis of the Maritime Strategy [SEA PLAN 2000] comes to mind.)
Moreover, some of the participants in the 'war game' have not exactly set the world on fire with their professional and political judgment. (And do former NSC back benchers really qualify as "SENIOR" leadership?)
Finally, I must ask: How relevant can a war game involving a Pacific rim nation be if none of the participants are navalists?
YMMV.
We'll just get Michelle to put Kim Jr. on a "time out".;)
To start off, I appreciate the thanks I received on here for being over here in South Korea. We just are doing our job though. I slightly regret my comment “of people remembering we are here. “ More what was on my mind is how unstable the DMZ is and how little coverage it ever gets on the media.
“As much as everyone likes to talk trash about "nuking" someone, realistically, that would not be a feasible option these days IMO”-rdret1
Thank you for speaking up about that. Not only would it destroy much of this
downfall of the world and all its superpowers. It is not exactly just a red button people hit whenever they need a trump card. God have mercy on us for the next time someone detonates a nuke in a military attack. That day will be frightening for us all. Besides, both sides NK and SK are fighting over this land. I really doubt that either side would want to destroy any bit of it.
I have been watching this thread closely each day. I am interested in the educated opinions of those who post here. I have to say though and maybe the moderators would agree with me, can we keep this professional? This started our serious and then some people just started to make it jokes off the deep end. You are talking about a lot of people over here whose future and lives are at risk for them and their families. Imagine if this was happening to you in the United States. How would you discuss it then? I am not trying to piss anyone off, just asking please be respectful and professional about this.
With that said, here is how I see it.
The problem with any sort of issue in cold war is that it is a very delicate diplomatic balancing act. The next move of the more conservative South Korea as well as the United States is very slow and post-event response. It is very much quid-pro-quo. If the DMZ remains silent we all remain silent, if our soldiers die, NK’s soldiers will die. The bottom line is neither side appears to want all out war again. In this situation we are in now, any next preemptive move on South Koreas part will lead to all out war. Because it has become rather evident that NK will respond full force now to anything. A direct attack on SK’s or the US’s responsibility directly against NK would be enough provocation for NK to let loose. They would more than likely at this point hit SK with all they have got.
Maybe not today or tomorrow, but in the near future. To add to that, the situation with the North would have to be completely neutralized in order to prevent such actions from occurring again in the future. That is a huge step for both sides, however the upper hand still appears to be in our court.
The biggest trouble with the invasion of North Korea, if and when it were to ever occur, is a complete mystery into how it would take place and to what resistance the invading force may encounter. North Korea due to its excellent disconnection from the world creates an enigma of military capability: based on personnel, logistics, economics, and current and accurate intelligence of politics and international ties.
For this instance the problem presents itself as how does one defeat an enemy that one knows little to nothing about. What little information is leaked from NK publicly is few and far between. And even in those cases it is difficult to decide what is real. NK’s “misinformation” counter-intelligence program is chaotic, but it is so chaotic that it effectively does what it was meant to do. Create a lot of questions about what really happens in their government.
Another deep and troubling problem is what is the end game answer? If an invasion took place to whom would NK control belong to, and whom is willing to take on an entire country that has been disconnected from the entire world for so long. Some things to consider:
-Culturally how re-education would be handled in NK, explaining to NK children and the people, that the rest of the world is not flesh eating zombies, and that American soldiers do not in fact eat babies for breakfast.
-Logistically, how a new nation state would be created from the ground up, what is needed there for infrastructure, food, military, supplies, government operational standards.
-Economically, who would fund it, who would want to adopt this lost child of the world that has forever been lost in time?
From the guy on the ground perspective, there is a great concern here to an attack from NK at any moment. What can be said is there does appear to be a destabilization of culture, infrastructure, and government to how NK functions.
With NK’s heavy Russian/Chinese communism influence, they made every attempt for years to appear to be strong and powerful and to discredit any media indication that they are otherwise.
The show NK put on went “well” for a good run, but as the rest of the world knows, the theory of communism works, but in practice it will fail over time. K.J.I. made a critical mistake fairly recently economically. The trouble was, the classes started to exist, there was a lower, middle and upper class of wealth as there is in a capitalist nation state. Some people started to get very wealthy, had exit plans, and retirement funds. When K.J.I realized this he had a great problem as a dictator, that problem is a loss of control for his people. With wealth comes power, as well as the power to disobey the dictators will. K.J.I.’s solution was to completely change the currency and its value, which overnight made everyone poor again.
It was at this point that the people of NK finally have had enough, and they are starting to rebel.
The secondary factor to a possible collapse of NK sooner than later, is agriculture and ration control. To be frank, the people are starving. K.J.I.’s program of ration control is logistically poorly organized; this created a huge problem of people not getting enough rations to feed themselves or their families. Again, this caused uprisings, and rebellion to the oppressive government that put the people in this situation. The mindset of K.J.I. is to keep the military and government powerful. What this means is that only the military and the government get most the rations. The people know this as well, so they started to attack government posts, and local military, killing each other over food. This method of destabilization in its own right could lead to the overthrow of an oppressive dictatorship as it has before in Africa, and South America. Maybe this is what our government is thinking as well. Let it sit, and see what becomes of it.
My last thought is it may appear we are doing “nothing.” But I wanted to point out that to bring our carrier here is a strong move on our part. Aircraft carriers do not float alone. They always have large escorts that ride with them. The group of naval ships although it may seem small, is a remarkable amount of firepower. Think of it like this, during the gulf war what did we do to disable all of Iraq’s air defense nearly over night? We used Tomahawk missiles and good intelligence. The reason we did this is because nap of the earth bombing with pilots these days is yesterdays news. We don’t always fight like that anymore. To have the ships here, shows we are ready to be serious if we need to.
. To have the ships here, shows we are ready to be serious if we need to.
Nukes indicate serious intent, as well.
My opinion is, whatever we use, we need to damn well use it quickly. I don't think this cat-and-mouse crap is gonna cut it much longer.
To have the ships here, shows we are ready to be serious if we need to.
Nukes indicate serious intent, as well.
Having those ships (and 'cargo' ;) ;)* ) there is a not so subtle implication of just such an intention.
Richard :munchin
*wink-wink
Having those ships (and 'cargo' ;) ;)* ) there is a not so subtle implication of just such an intention.
Richard :munchin
*wink-wink
Roger that.
Team Sergeant
11-27-2010, 07:42
With respect, if you're referring to a 2005 article in The Atlantic (available here (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2005/07/north-korea-the-war-game/4029/)), I don't think you're presenting the best evidence to support your argument. The Atlantic is a middle brow magazine with a left of center editorial focus. The publication habitually bowdlerizes arguments that direct military confrontation with America's adversaries may be necessary--especially if Republicans are the ones making those arguments. (That magazine's thoughtful analysis of the Maritime Strategy [SEA PLAN 2000] comes to mind.)
Moreover, some of the participants in the 'war game' have not exactly set the world on fire with their professional and political judgment. (And do former NSC back benchers really qualify as "SENIOR" leadership?)
Finally, I must ask: How relevant can a war game involving a Pacific rim nation be if none of the participants are navalists?
YMMV.
Sigaba,
Let me assist you in our thinking, the Navy and Air Force are considered "support" elements to the Army, you know the ones that actually see the enemy.
Now on the real side of planning the Navy and Air Force only take care of "one" aspect of the fight. Well that is unless you think the NK Navy is going to send warships to attack Okinawa, Guam, and the United States.......:rolleyes:
I think your Naval wargaming might just be stuck in the 1950's.
TS
The Reaper
11-27-2010, 09:50
I think we could execute a limited strike against the NK Navy or AF and teach them a lesson without starting WW III.
A covert op with plausible deniability would be even better, but I have doubts we could pull that one off successfully.
The real problem remains that we are dealing with irrational players.
TR
Is it time to see just how good/tough and well trained the SK Army is? If they won't repond immediately to a deliberate sinking of one of their Naval vessels and the loss of nearly 50 lives and the deliberate shelling of their soveriegn territory...why TF should we care? For this one..... maybe we can just sit on the sidelines and dry off the football inbetween plays for them.
The Reaper
11-27-2010, 11:07
Is it time to see just how good/tough and well trained the SK Army is? If they won't repond immediately to a deliberate sinking of one of their Naval vessels and the loss of nearly 50 lives and the deliberate shelling of their soveriegn territory...why TF should we care? For this one..... maybe we can just sit on the sidelines and dry off the football inbetween plays for them.
The South Koreans are in the unenviable position of having their most lucrative civilian target (Seoul) within range of the majority of the NK camouflaged and well-protected heavy artillery. Furthermore, the NKs have metric tons of chem and bio weapons.
I believe that the ROKs can win, militarily, but it might be a Pyrrhic victory with millions of casualites and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.
Then you would still have the enormous post-war cost of trying to integrate the North.
And you have to keep the Chinese out of it, and they do not want millions of refugees pouring across their border either.
TR
Sigaba,
Let me assist you in our thinking, the Navy and Air Force are considered "support" elements to the Army, you know the ones that actually see the enemy.
Now on the real side of planning the Navy and Air Force only take care of "one" aspect of the fight. Well that is unless you think the NK Navy is going to send warships to attack Okinawa, Guam, and the United States.......:rolleyes:
I think your Naval wargaming might just be stuck in the 1950's.
TSTS--
With respect, IMO contemporaneous discussions about strategy are less than they might be because American navalism is in decline.
Since 1945, navalism has served as a necessary--and under appreciated--counter weight to those air power enthusiasts and advocates of 'transformation' who believe that there are sustainable high tech short cuts to fighting wars.
Moreover, from a historical perspective, American navalism has frequently served to keep rank and file Americans focused on "big picture" concepts. These concepts include nationalism and a sense of mission.
IMO, the army does not yet have this type of influence. This influence has not fully flowered for several reasons including:
America's long standing ambivalence towards standing armies;
William Sherman's and Emory Upton's lasting influence on civil-military relations,
widely held popular misconceptions about the Vietnam War; and
the increasingly fetishized discourse over military affairs in mass popular culture.
Consequently, when I made my tongue in cheek aside, I was not arguing that the U.S. Navy would be at the forefront of a solution to the ongoing crisis with North Korea. I was simply suggesting that navalists could bring something to the discussion.
My $0.02.
Surgicalcric
11-27-2010, 18:42
...American navalism has frequently served to keep rank and file Americans focused on "big picture" concepts. These concepts include nationalism and a sense of mission...
And if it wasnt for the large carrier groups where would the Navy find the money to fund the SEALs or their never ending projects...
The same holds true for the AF, with respect to the PJ's/CCT's... :p
And if it wasnt for the large carrier groups where would the Navy find the money to fund the SEALs or their never ending projects...
The same holds true for the AF, with respect to the PJ's/CCT's... :pThere are many reasons why I have privately asked/nagged those members of your brotherhood who tolerate my rambling PMs to pen their memoirs / autobiographies.
Not the least of these reasons is that the navy is still reaping the benefits today of the public outreach it did in the Gilded Age.* Indeed, the navy and associated navalists were so successful that some reform-minded soldiers argued for fleet modernization at the army's expense.**
__________________________________________________ ___________
*James Donal Sexton, “Forging the Sword: Congress and the American Naval Renaissance, 1880-1890” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, 1976); Mark Russell Shulman, “The Emergence of American Sea Power: Politics and the Creation of a U.S. Naval Strategy, 1882-1893,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1990).
** Eugene Griffin “Our Sea Coast Defenses,” North American Review 147:380 (1888): 64-78.
incarcerated
11-27-2010, 19:46
To what degree is NK acting as an independent, sovereign entity that does not take direction from China?
If the original artillery fire into the South was conducted without China’s blessing (or knowledge), is China likely to have taken control of its client state and the situation by now?
Is this really a proxy conflict with China?
China’s warning over the carrier group movement is an indication that we MIGHT be in the right place in terms of addressing the issue through its center of gravity (China). (I qualify this because I do not have a lot of faith in the Administration, and I do not put it past the Dems to give the North another reactor when it is all said and done. It will be a peaceful reactor, of course.)
What other regional levers do we have that can be applied to China?
Team Sergeant
11-27-2010, 23:29
TS--
With respect, IMO contemporaneous discussions about strategy are less than they might be because American navalism is in decline.Since 1945, navalism has served as a necessary--and under appreciated--counter weight to those air power enthusiasts and advocates of 'transformation' who believe that there are sustainable high tech short cuts to fighting wars.
Moreover, from a historical perspective, American navalism has frequently served to keep rank and file Americans focused on "big picture" concepts. These concepts include nationalism and a sense of mission.
IMO, the army does not yet have this type of influence. This influence has not fully flowered for several reasons including:
America's long standing ambivalence towards standing armies;
William Sherman's and Emory Upton's lasting influence on civil-military relations,
widely held popular misconceptions about the Vietnam War; and
the increasingly fetishized discourse over military affairs in mass popular culture.
Consequently, when I made my tongue in cheek aside, I was not arguing that the U.S. Navy would be at the forefront of a solution to the ongoing crisis with North Korea. I was simply suggesting that navalists could bring something to the discussion.
My $0.02.
Im not sure what you mean by this statement especially since the USA boasts the biggest, baddest and most bang for your buck Navy. I'm not sure if decline is proper as we are now just doing more with less. (How many Iowa Class battle ships fire power would it take to match just one Ticonderoga Class Cruiser?)
Im not sure what you mean by this statement especially since the USA boasts the biggest, baddest and most bang for your buck Navy. I'm not sure if decline is proper as we are now just doing more with less. (How many Iowa Class battle ships fire power would it take to match just one Ticonderoga Class Cruiser?)TS--
I would differentiate between American naval power and American navalism. For navalists, sea power is a means to an end and that end is to replace the ethos of Jeffersonian democracy with Hamiltonian republicanism.*
When I speak of the decline of American navalism I am referring to the difficult--if not impossible--choice navalists had to make during the Carter and Reagan presidencies. The Carter administration wanted the wrong type of fleet (given the geopolitical circumstances) for most of the right reasons while the Reagan administration wanted the right type of fleet but for reasons that were antithetical to navalists' core values.
________________________________________________
* This definition of navalism draws on Shulman, “The Emergence of American Sea Power: Politics and the Creation of a U.S. Naval Strategy, 1882-1893,” vii. Critical interpretations of modern American navalism can be found in Peter Karsten, The Naval Aristocracy: The Golden Age of Annapolis and the Emergence of Modern American Navalism (1972; reprint, Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2008); Robert Seager, II, Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Man and His Letters (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1977); Philip A. Crowl, “Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Naval Historian,” in Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Modern Age, ed. Peter Paret et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 444-471. (IMO, it really says something about the U.S. Naval Institute's commitment to American naval history for it to reprint Karsten.)
DevilSide
11-28-2010, 09:30
One thing I don't understand is why re-education/integration is a huge problem when it comes to us, should we ever move in we would bring everything they've never had, such as a decent meal. Eventually, wouldn't they be more welcoming when they see the difference between NK and their propaganda image of us, and the real "us"? I am not very knowledgeable in Korean culture, that would be the QP's, but I think if someone fed me when I was hungry that would be a good step in relations.
Just my $0.02 cents, keeping it professional as I can.
Team Sergeant
11-28-2010, 09:56
TS--
I would differentiate between American naval power and American navalism. For navalists, sea power is a means to an end and that end is to replace the ethos of Jeffersonian democracy with Hamiltonian republicanism.*
When I speak of the decline of American navalism I am referring to the difficult--if not impossible--choice navalists had to make during the Carter and Reagan presidencies. The Carter administration wanted the wrong type of fleet (given the geopolitical circumstances) for most of the right reasons while the Reagan administration wanted the right type of fleet but for reasons that were antithetical to navalists' core values.
________________________________________________
* This definition of navalism draws on Shulman, “The Emergence of American Sea Power: Politics and the Creation of a U.S. Naval Strategy, 1882-1893,” vii. Critical interpretations of modern American navalism can be found in Peter Karsten, The Naval Aristocracy: The Golden Age of Annapolis and the Emergence of Modern American Navalism (1972; reprint, Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2008); Robert Seager, II, Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Man and His Letters (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1977); Philip A. Crowl, “Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Naval Historian,” in Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Modern Age, ed. Peter Paret et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 444-471. (IMO, it really says something about the U.S. Naval Institute's commitment to American naval history for it to reprint Karsten.)
So you're not stuck in the 1950's, you're still applying 1800 navalism to modern day issues.
I fully understand that our naval power is a floating political statement. Just like I understand the military is an extension of American politics.
And you compare carter the coward and President Reagan the Emperor! (You made me laugh)
Black and white. One desired not frighten the world with our military might and the other brought down the Soviet Empire.
One "voiced" his complaint over the Soviet invasion of A-Stan, gave away the Panama Canal, allowed 53 Americans to be held hostage for 444 days, was responsible for the failed rescue attempt and the lives of those lost on the attempt. America was a global joke for a number of years. carter spent what seven years in the Navy and then went to take care of the peanut farm. Please.
I am not conflicted, I can differentiate between a wolf and a lamb 100% of the time. I'm sure carter's naval strategies were very much in line with his left-wing-socialist, "social justice" views.
One changed history, the other will go down in the history books as the "second" worst president this country has ever seen.
Some read history, some write history, some teach history, while others make history. I was on active duty under both carter and President Reagan and believe me, it was black and white, lamb and wolf.
TS
Masochist
11-28-2010, 10:03
DevilSide,
It seems simple, but when your door is kicked in and everything you've been force fed your entire life is validated, how do you know the nice meal and promise of a good life isn't a ruse? When you live in a state of perpetual paranoia and fear, even something as simple as a good meal from the other side makes you wonder what the ulterior motive is.
DevilSide
11-28-2010, 10:13
DevilSide,
It seems simple, but when your door is kicked in and everything you've been force fed your entire life is validated, how do you know the nice meal and promise of a good life isn't a ruse? When you live in a state of perpetual paranoia and fear, even something as simple as a good meal from the other side makes you wonder what the ulterior motive is.
I understand now, thanks.
I'm just saying it smells more serious this go-round:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/28/china-calls-urgent-talks-north-korea/
North Korea has deployed surface-to-air missiles near the Yellow Sea border, the Yonhap News Agency reports.
"(The missiles) appear to be targeting our fighter jets that fly near the Northern Limit Line," a South Korean source told the news agency.
The source who spoke on condition of anonymity says North Korea is preparing to fire the Soviet-made missiles.
"The military is preparing for the possibility of further provocations as the North Korean military has deployed firepower near the NLL and is preparing to fire," the source said.
This latest development comes as a U.S. supercarrier and South Korean destroyer took up position in the tense sea on Sunday for joint military exercises that were a united show of force just days after a deadly North Korean artillery attack.
Nov. 28; Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei speaks during a press briefing in Beijing, China.
Nov. 28: South Korean ships stage off of the coast of South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island.
Nov. 27: A South Korean nightly news anchor prepares to give a live broadcast from a desk set up on top of the rubble in a destroyed neighborhood on Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Military Pegs Hourly Air Force One Cost at $181G, as Obama Sets Travel Record Amber Alert Issued for 3 Michigan Brothers U.S., S. Korea Launch War Games Derailed: Why High-Speed Trains Haven't Caught On in the U.S. Ten Worst Places to Live As tensions escalated across the region, with North Korea threatening another "merciless" attack, China belatedly jumped into the fray. Beijing's top nuclear envoy, Wu Dawei, called for an emergency meeting in early December among regional powers involved in nuclear disarmament talks, including North Korea.
Seoul responded cautiously to the proposal from North Korea's staunch ally, saying it should be "reviewed very carefully" in light of North Korea's recent revelation of a new uranium-enrichment facility, even as protesters begged President Lee Myung-bak to find a way to resolve the tension and restore peace.
The troubled relations between the two Koreas, which fought a three-year war in the 1950s, have steadily deteriorated since Lee's conservative government took power in 2008 with a tough new policy toward nuclear-armed North Korea.
Eight months ago, a South Korean warship went down in the western waters, killing 46 sailors in the worst attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War. Then, last Tuesday, North Korean troops showered artillery on Yeonpyeong, a South Korean-held island that houses military bases as well as a civilian population of 1,300 -- an attack that marked a new level of hostility.
Two South Korean marines and two civilians were killed and 18 others wounded in the hailstorm of artillery that sent residents fleeing into bunkers and reduced homes on the island to charred rubble.
North Korea blamed the South for provoking the attack by holding artillery drills near the Koreas' maritime border, and has threatened to be "merciless" if the current war games -- set to last until Dec. 1 -- get too close to its territory.
As U.S. and South Korean ships, including the nuclear-powered USS George Washington, sailed into the waters off Korea's west coast Sunday, China began launching its diplomatic bid to calm tensions.
Washington and Seoul had been pressing China, North Korea's main ally and benefactor, to help defuse the situation amid fears of all-out war.
China, slow at first to react, has quickened its diplomatic intervention in recent days. Chinese state councilor Dai Bingguo made a last-minute visit to Seoul to confer with Lee.
Lee pressured China to contribute to peace in a "more objective, responsible" matter, and warned Sunday that Seoul would respond "strongly" to any further provocation, the presidential office said.
The strong words were Lee's first public comment in days. He was due to address the nation Monday morning amid calls from his people to take stronger action in dealing with the defiant North.
North Korea has walked a path of defiance since launching a rocket in April 2009 in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and abandoning the disarmament process in protest against the condemnation that followed.
However, in recent months Pyongyang has shown an eagerness to get back to the talks, and has appeared increasingly frustrated by U.S. and South Korean reluctance to restart the negotiations.
Seoul has said it wants an acknowledgment of regret for the sinking of the Cheonan warship in March as well as a concrete show of commitment to denuclearization.
North Korea, which cites the U.S. military presence in South Korea as a main reason behind its drive to build atomic weapons, routinely calls the joint exercises between the allies a rehearsal for war.
Washington, which keeps 28,500 troops in South Korea to protect the ally, insists the routine drills were planned before last Tuesday's attack.
The exercises will take place over four days, but no live-fire drills are planned, said Cmdr. Jeff Davis, spokesman for the 7th Fleet in Japan.
Along scenic Mallipo Beach on the west coast, about 50 South Korean soldiers were laying down an aluminum road to prepare for an amphibious landing drill Monday. Barbed wire and metal staves ran the length of the beach for about 2 miles (3 kilometers). Military ships hovered in the distance.
North Korea expressed renewed outrage over the Yellow Sea drills.
The war games are a "pretext for aggression and ignite a war at any cost," the National Peace Committee of Korea said in a statement carried Sunday by the official Korean Central News Agency.
Hours earlier, the rattle of new artillery fire from North Korea sent residents, journalists, police and troops scrambling for cover on Yeonpyeong Island. None of the rounds landed on the island, military officials said, but the incident showed how tense the situation remains.
Saying they could not guarantee the journalists' safety, South Korea's Defense Ministry sent a ship to ferry them off the island but bad weather forced them to cancel the evacuation. About 380 people, including 28 islanders and 190 journalists, remained on Yeonpyeong on Sunday, officials said.
A similar burst of artillery fire Friday occurred just as the U.S. military's top commander in the region, Gen. Walter Sharp, was touring Yeonpyeong Island. No shells landed anywhere in South Korean territory.
Calls for tougher action made way Sunday for pleas for peace among about 150 South Koreans who turned out for a vigil Sunday evening in a Seoul plaza, huddling with candles in paper cups and chanting, "Give us peace!"
"It was very shocking," said Kang Hong-koo, 22, a student. "I'm here to appease the souls of the people who were killed in the North Korean attack. I hope the current tense situation is alleviated quickly."
CombatMuffin
11-29-2010, 09:52
It seems very serious, but at least the news and statements make it seems as though no one wants commit to a first strike, after those artillery shellings.
I read a lot about using nuclear capability and "getting rid of the problem" right away, and I'm personally amazed some people think it works as simple as that. The simple solution isn't always the best, or as simple as one thinks.
Besides, could the U.S. handle the re-education, restructuring and reformation of NK? I personally don't think it can, considering the fact that they spread out in the middle east, and the current border problems aren't helping it politically from within.
There is also the issue of: how much does it depend on the U.S., after all, you are fighting someone else's war, the U.S. simply has a deep commitment with South Korea, but are you willing to risk American lives in declared warfare against a country that is probably better equipped than the countries you just fought)and are fighting) in the middle east?
Its a hard decision.
So you're not stuck in the 1950's, you're still applying 1800 navalism to modern day issues.TS--
To its benefit and detriment, American naval historiography--thanks to the influence of navalism--is inexorably linked to contemporaneous discussions of domestic politics, naval policy, national security strategy, and international affairs. Consequently, I strongly--but respectfully--disagree with your assessment that I'm "stuck" in the 1800s or the 1950s (or the 1980s). Instead, I posit that my limited understanding of the past informs my conceptualization of the present.And you compare [President Carter and President Reagan] (You made me laugh)With respect, I myself am not entirely happy with the results of this comparison. Nevertheless, one must sometimes go where the muse leads.
In any case, it was Reagan himself, his supporters in the GOP, and contemporaneous critics of Carter (as well as of Nixon and of Ford) who invited and have perpetuated the comparison with their "decade of weakness" argument.*
Verily, while the political right has enjoyed the political capital gained from the comparison, political arguments sometimes are not historiographically sustainable. In this case, the "decade of weakness" argument goes hand in hand with the thesis that there was a "naval renaissance" during the Reagan administration.**
I disagree slightly but significantly with this interpretation. In my view, the revitalization of the navy began during the 1970s, took root during Carter's presidency, and flowered in full during the 1980s. I am also of the view that this revitalization fell short of being a "renaissance" thanks to the political maneuvering of the Reagan administration. To its credit, the Reagan administration correctly advocated the modernization and expansion of the armed forces generally and the navy in particular. However, this advocacy came at the expense of the American public gaining a more informed understanding of the armed services.
These conclusions stem from my research. First, a significant amount of archival evidence in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the operational archives of the U.S. Naval Historical Center indicate that the Reagan administration's approach to naval affairs was driven more by politics than by ideas. Given the choice of (a) persuading a skeptic of the legitimate needs of the navy or (b) trying to intimidate that skeptic, the Reagan administration consistently chose the latter. Likewise, given the choice between (a) actively educating Americans of why it was absolutely necessary to modernize and to expand the fleet or (b) making the discussions center around criticisms of his predecessor conflated with articulate appeals for ideological unity, the Reagan administration too often chose the latter.
Second, in a wide range of professional and scholarly publications one can find considerable evidence that the most important event of the 'naval renaissance' began during the mid-1970s. This event, the Maritime Strategy debate, was among the most significant discussions in contemporary American history. The evidence also suggests that the Reagan administration deliberately sought to bypass this debate rather than taking the time to win it decisively. (In contrast, President Carter had, clumsily, ineptly, inarticulately, and arrogantly, tried to expand the scope of this debate.)
Third, my research thus far on what became the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 has revealed a startling amount of disinterest on the part of the Reagan administration. This disinterest is especially striking because Goldwater-Nichols is, for worse and for better, one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history.***
These research areas, as well as three others, have led me to conclude that (a) Carter deserves a somewhat larger measure of credit for the navy's resurgence than he's thus far received, and (b) that in many ways, the revitalization of the American armed forces during the 1980s reflected the dedication of armed service professionalism and various civilians more than the inspired leadership of the White House.
YMMV. Black and white. One desired not frighten the world with our military might and the other brought down the Soviet Empire.While some historians and other researchers have made this argument, I do not think it is a sustainable interpretation. (And if it turns out to be the case after all, it will raise serious questions about Reagan's judgment as a strategist--if he knew that he could bring down the USSR, then why did America find itself unprepared for the end of the Cold War?)Some read history, some write history, some teach history, while others make history.Are these activities mutually exclusive?I was on active duty under both carter and President Reagan and believe me, it was black and white, lamb and wolf.
TSI absolutely 100% believe you. Yet the fact that Reagan was a better commander in chief, a superior president, and a more engaging human being than Carter does not disqualify either from sustained historical inquiry by eggheads like me.
Now, to return to the OT in the OP.
IMO, this crisis illustrates the utility of Bush the Younger's conceptualization of GWOT as a conflict against an "axis of evil." Esteemed members of this BB have energetically and eloquently articulated the view that GWOT is essentially a clash of civilization pitting the modern world (both west and east) against the pre (or anti) modern Islamic world.
I have disagreed with this viewpoint because it does not account for the persistence of the thoroughly modern scourges of communism and totalitarianism. I believe that a rogue modern state--no matter how dysfunctional or impoverished--poses a greater threat to America's self interest and international peace than do the Jihadists.
My $0.02.
_____________________________________________
^ This thread hijack is fueled by Google Desktop.
* A summary of this argument can be found in Colin S. Gray and Jeffrey G. Barlow, “Inexcusable Restraint: The Decline of American Military Power in the 1970s,” International Security 10:2 (fall 1985): 70-83.
** George Baer, One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U.S. Navy, 1890-1990 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 432, 440; Frederick H. Hartmann, Naval Renaissance: The U.S. Navy in the 1980s (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1990), 25-33, 69-70, 199-217; John B. Hattendorf, “The Evolution of the Maritime Strategy: 1977 to 1987,” Naval War College Review 41:3 (summer 1988): 7-28; Robert Love, History of the United States Navy, vol. 2, 1942-1991 (Harrisburg, VA: Stockpile Books, 1992), chps. 23-25; Allan R. Millett and Peter Maslowski, For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States, rev. ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1994), 614-620.
*** IMO, Reagan's disinterest is well captured in his signing statement for that act. Ronald Reagan, Statement on Signing the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, October 1, 1986, available at John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=36525.
incarcerated
12-06-2010, 02:06
Money sent to N Korea returned as torpedo and missiles
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/78082188-00d0-11e0-aa29-00144feab49a.html#axzz17Jeh2Sbj
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/12/ex-intelligence-chief-south-korea-act-north/?test=latestnews
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010, before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on the annual threats assessment of the U.S. intelligence community.
WASHINGTON -- South Korea is losing patience with North Korea and probably will take military action, former national intelligence director Dennis Blair said Sunday.
Blair, who just returned from the Korean peninsula, said he doesn't see a major war starting, but he believes recent aggression by the North will press South Korea into some lower level military confrontations.
He said there's support among South Koreans for their military to take a stronger stance, adding that "a South Korean government who does not react would not be able to survive there."
He told CNN's "State of the Union" that the North's recent moves to sink a South Korean ship and fire artillery rounds on a South Korean island near a disputed sea border have frayed Seoul's patience. The artillery attack killed four South Koreans, while 46 sailors died in the sinking of the ship.
Blair said that what is needed is a united Korea under Seoul's influence, but China would have to exert its influence on the North for that to happen, and Beijing prefers the two countries to remain divided.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/13/mullen-warns-risk-war-rising-korean-peninsula/
AP2010
Dec. 8: Adm. Mike Mullen and South Korean Gen. Han Min-Koo shake hands after their joint press conference at the Defense ministry in Seoul. On Dec. 13 Mullen said that the danger of war or hostilities on the Korean peninsula is rising.
The top U.S. military officer said Monday that the danger of war or hostilities on the Korean peninsula is rising, as North Korea warned that cooperation between its southern neighbor and the United States could trigger a nuclear war.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told troops in Baghdad that North Korea has upped the ante in its aggression against South Korea -- a pattern he said is tied to preparations for Kim Jong Il to pass power to his son.
The latest example of bellicose rhetoric came with North Korea warning of nuclear war, as South Korea planned live-fire naval drills to run Monday through Friday. Those drills follow a North Korea artillery attack on front-line Yeonpyeong Island that killed two South Korean marines and two civilians.
The Nov. 23 artillery barrage, the North's first assault to target a civilian area since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, began after the North said South Korea first fired artillery toward its territorial waters. South Korea says it fired shells southward, not toward North Korea, as part of routine exercises.
After the attack, South Korea staged joint military drills with the United States and also pushed ahead with more artillery exercises, despite the North's warning that they would aggravate tension.
A South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff officer tried to play down the significance of this week's drills, saying they are part of routine military exercises and would not occur near the disputed western Korean sea border where last month's attack took place. The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of office policy, gave no further details.
North Korea, however, lashed out at Seoul, accusing South Korea of collaborating with the United States and Japan to ratchet up pressure on Pyongyang.
That cooperation "is nothing but treachery escalating the tension between the North and the South and bringing the dark clouds of a nuclear war to hang over the Korean peninsula," Pyongyang's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
North Korea has often issued similar threats during standoffs.
In a show of unity, top diplomats from South Korea, the United States and Japan met in Washington last week and said they would not resume negotiations aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program until the country's behavior changes. Mullen visited South Korea last week and warned Pyongyang to stop its "belligerent, reckless behavior."
On Monday, South Korean and U.S. defense officials met in Seoul for one-day discussions on North Korea and other issues that are part of regular defense talks, according to Seoul's Defense Ministry.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/17/nkorea-warns-skorea-stop-live-drills/
SEOUL, South Korea – South Korea said Saturday it will go ahead with artillery drills on a border island shelled by North Korea last month despite Pyongyang's threat to retaliate again, as Russia and China expressed concerns over tension on the volatile peninsula.
The North warned on Friday it will strike even harder than before if the South went ahead with its planned drill. Four people died last month in the North's attack on Yeonpyeong Island near the tense sea border.
The U.S. supports South Korea, saying the country has a right to conduct such a military exercise. However, Russia's Foreign Ministry expressed its "extreme concern" Friday over the drills and urged South Korea to cancel them to prevent a further escalation of tension.
China, the North's key ally, also said it is firmly opposed to any acts that could worsen already-high tension on the Korean peninsula. "In regard to what could lead to worsening the situation or any escalation of acts of sabotage of regional peace and stability, China is firmly and unambiguously opposed," Chines Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement Saturday.
South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said Saturday marines on the drills would push ahead with the drills as scheduled and the military is ready to respond to any possible provocation.
The artillery drills, however, were not expected to be held over the weekend because of bad weather and would be conducted either on Monday or Tuesday, the officer said on condition of anonymity, citing office rules.
Marines carrying rifles conducted routine patrols Saturday morning on Yeonpyeong, and no warning for residents to evacuate to underground shelters has been issued.
Brief bloody naval skirmishes occurred several times along the western sea border but last month's assault was the first by the North to target a civilian area since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War. The North does not recognize the U.N.-drawn sea border in the area.
The North claims that South Korea fired artillery toward its territorial waters before it unleashed shells on the island last month, while South Korea says it launched shells southward, not toward North Korea, as part of routine exercises.
In Washington, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Friday that North Korea should not view that as a threat.
"A country has every right to train and exercise its military in its own self-defense," Crowley said. "North Korea should not use any future legitimate training exercises as justification to undertake further provocative actions."
Still, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, voiced worry of a potential chain reaction if the drill is misunderstood or if North Korea reacts negatively. "What you don't want to have happen out of that is for us to lose control of the escalation," he told reporters at the Pentagon.
A flurry of regional diplomacy was under way to defuse the tension, with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson visiting the North.
A frequent unofficial envoy to the reclusive country, Richardson said he wanted to visit the North's main nuclear complex and meet with senior officials during his four-day trip, though details of his schedule were unclear.
"My objective is to see if we can reduce the tension in the Korean peninsula," Richardson said at the airport in Pyongyang, according to Associated Press Television News.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg held closed-door meetings Friday with Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo. Beijing's top foreign policy official returned last week from talks in Pyongyang with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. China has come under growing pressure to push ally North Korea to change its behavior.
In New York, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the Nov. 23 attack on the tiny island of Yeonpyeong "one of the gravest provocations since the end of Korean war."
Ban, a former South Korean foreign minister, urged North Korea to show restraint and called on both Koreas to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula.
___
Yep, pretty sure. The US and others fall for it every 10 years or so. It's an old saw. The DRPK is masterful with playing this card. They always win this game.
We have a winner...:cool:
You nailed it, Green Light.http://www.france24.com/en/20101220-north-korea-south-provocative-military-drills-Yeonpyeong-island-live-fire-fighter-jets
South Korea fired artillery in a 90-minute drill from a front-line island Monday and launched fighter jets to deter attacks after North Korea warned of catastrophic retaliation for the maneuvers.
There was no sign of any North Korean military response during the drill, a South Korean Defense Ministry official said, speaking on condition of anonymity, citing office rules. The South had evacuated hundreds of residents near its tense land border and sent residents of islands near disputed waters into underground bunkers amid soaring fears of war.
The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK did not feel any need to retaliate against every despicable military provocation, like one taking revenge after facing a blow. [...] This was nothing but a childish play with fire. [...] The world should properly know who is the true champion of peace and who is the real provocateur of a war.
The live-fire exercises came nearly a month after the North responded to earlier maneuvers by shelling Yeonpyeong island, killing two marines and two civilians in its first attack targeting civilian areas since the 1950-53 Korean War. It had said it would respond even more harshly to any new drills from the Yellow Sea island.
U.N. diplomats meeting in New York failed to find any solution to ease fears of renewed warfare on the Korean peninsula.
Hours later, Seoul’s Defense Ministry said the drills were under way on Yeonpyeong, a tiny enclave of fishing communities and military bases about seven miles (11 kilometers) from North Korean shores.
The North considers waters around Yeonpyeong its own territory. Similar drills on Nov. 23 sparked the North’s artillery barrage, after what it says were clear warnings to the South to halt the firing. The North warned of a “catastrophe” if South Korea went ahead with new drills.
South Korea’s military said ahead of Monday’s planned drills that it would “immediately and sternly” deal with any provocation by the North. Fighter jets flew over South Korean airspace on a mission to deter North Korean attacks, a Defense Ministry official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department rules.
Residents, local officials and journalists on Yeonpyeong and four other islands were ordered to evacuate to underground shelters because of possible attacks by North Korea, Ongjin County government spokesman Won Ji-young said.
Hundreds of South Koreans living near the tense land border with North Korea were either evacuated to bomb shelters or taken to areas farther south ahead of the drills, local officials said.
On Yeonpyeong, residents filed into an underground shelter after authorities announced the drill and huddled on the floor as a South Korean soldier showed them how to use a gas mask, according to footage shot by Associated Press Television News.
“I feel the same as last Nov. 23, when North Korea fired artillery at us,” said Oh Gui-nam, a 70-year-old island resident. “My emotions are all tangled up.”
The Defense Ministry said the artillery drills involved several types of weapons, including K-9 self-propelled guns, ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok told reporters, according to his office.
Ahead of the drills, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak on Monday asked all South Koreans to be more united and vigilant about North Korea.
“The highest-level of national security comes from unity among the people,” Lee said in a previously scheduled meeting with home affairs officials, according to Lee’s office. North Korea provokes South Korea when “our public opinion is divided,” Lee said.
The U.N. Security Council failed Sunday to agree on a statement to address rising tensions on the Korean peninsula.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said the United States and other council members demanded that the council condemn North Korea for two deadly attacks this year that have helped send relations to their lowest point in decades. But diplomats said China strongly objected.
After eight hours of closed-door consultations Sunday, Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, who called the emergency council meeting, told reporters “we were not successful in bridging all the bridges.”
Although some countries still need to consult capitals, Rice said “the gaps that remain are unlikely to be bridged.”