babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » so what about north korea?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: so what about north korea?
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 10 August 2003 02:10 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
is there a chance in hell this doesn't go off?
"Imagine Korea's surprise when the U.S. military responded this June by announcing the withdrawal of the Second Infantry Division from the DMZ to positions south of Seoul. The protestors should have been delighted. They weren't.

Although the transformation of U.S. forces in South Korea to a more mobile rapid reaction force has been underway for several years, the withdrawal of the troops from the DMZ has been widely interpreted as pulling U.S. soldiers out of harm's way to prepare for a military strike on North Korea. The Pentagon has long been concerned with the "tyranny of proximity" that hampers its maneuverability on the Korean Peninsula.

New South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun pleaded with Washington to put off this relocation until the current nuclear crisis is resolved. He was ignored. Instead, the Bush administration threw money at the problem, offering $11 billion to upgrade U.S. forces in South Korea over the next four years.

This latest offer is part of a joint U.S. and South Korean effort to beef up the latter's military capabilities. Seoul has set out to acquire at least three Aegis-class destroyers and to upgrade its air force with cutting edge U.S. reconnaissance planes and F-15 fighters. At South Korea's urging, the U.S. reversed a 1979 agreement and extended the range of South Korean tactical missiles to 300 km, which brought them within striking distance of all of North Korea. For 2003, the Seoul government will spend $14.5 billion on the military, a 6.4% increase over 2002 and the highest defense budget in its history."
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/symmetry2003.html


From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 10 August 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well you can see why kim want's to move to nukes. He has three basic choices (besides abandoning his gov't or reunification)

1 - he can find some way to start getting real modern equipment, especally planes, tanks and choppers. He has to get enough to replace his exising forces, and enough spares and parts to train agressively with. Good luck

2- He can attack now, while they're still 'weak' so to speak. Focus on beating up on the korean troops and facilities, and try to advance as far as seoul, and hold that line. Perhaps threaten the civilian population within that city. And then trade it back for massive concessions, and if they're smart use it to craft a deal with china. (who then graciously steps in and 'negotiates' a peacefull settlement). Unless he gets lucky or the american forces are heavily engaged elsewhere it's a real long shot.

3 - He can go nuclear. Even a relatively small arsenal of nukes can remove any advantages the SK's have in technology of conventional forces, and can be written off as 'defensive' (you can't nuke a country you're going to invade - you'll be conquoring a wasteland).

Small wonder he's going nulcear. If the us hadn't poked at them they'd have probably been happy with the status quo. But there's no way he's going to believe that the us WON'T hit him at some point, after he got named part of the 'axis' and a 'terrorist supplier'. He knows the UN can't hold the americans back.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 10 August 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wasn't there a leaked Pentagon study a few yeara ago that concluded an attack by North Korea would result in its military taking the entire penninsula within a few days?

Then again, after the USSR collapsed analysts realised that the Pentagon had for years vastly overrated the Warsaw Pact's military capability.

[ 10 August 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 10 August 2003 04:36 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reality is anything's possible. Germany's forces, if analized even with today's knowledge, had no business taking france that quick. Likewise, three carriers should never have been able to prevent the invasion of midway. Unless you have a decisive force and a little luck you never can quite tell. If sun szu taught anything, it was that numbers on paper don't win wars, and the only thing you can be certan of is uncertanty.

The point is slightly moot - we're discussing a war where north and south get no help from america or china. An unlikely event in any meaningful time frame. If NK gets nukes, america will have to be very very very carefull about any kind of conventional war. And there's no way china's going to go along with the us popping their own nukes so close to the chinese boarder. How would america feel about a nuclear exchange going on between russia and, say, mexico city?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 10 August 2003 05:15 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I think the prediction was that the North may be able to take the entire penninsula before the US could send reenforcements (as almost happened at the beginning of the first Korean War).
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca