The situation in Korea

Originally posted by Rick
The iraqis invaded quait, open hostle aggression. They got the crap kicked outa them by the US and surrendered and they signed terms. It included dozens of things, and you or anyone else cant name one they havent broken. And you assume they are trustworthy when they say they have no weapons? Its their job by the treaty they signed to prove to the world they DONT have weapons, and repeatedly they have refused to do that. Its usually in small ways, forcing the inspectors to wait an hour before inspecting and having "off limits" sites as if they were allowed to set the terms.

Saddam should have been disposed of twenty minutes (or had the irreversible process started) after that happened the first time, not the 10 milllionth. You let him get away with small things, he could probably reinvade quwait, and you'd say "Oh, he says hes happy, lets not do anything, he has TEH CEVELLANS!!!"
You claim whatevers happened shouldn't be reason because its not much worse then the last few things were. Thats not the point, the very first thing that happened years ago should have, and still should be.

i wonder how the iraq could ever proove that it doesnt have these weapons. the uno can hardly send enough people to search the whole country at the same time, its simply impossible for saddam to proove, you will always say saddam still has these weapons no matter what (and obviously you dont need any proove for that, you just say he has and lets start the bombing)

Korea agreed to not use the nuclear technology a previous (and treasonous, and well liked especially in Europe) american president gave them and on top of that they agreed not to develop nukes. They claimd they wouldn't and yet in few years they had a successful nuclear test anyway, lied they didn't and then said so what when Russia and the US showed siesmographoc data that is proof. They proceded to state that they intend to use the nukes and they sell ICBM weapons to Iraq+anyone else.
[sarcasm]
Of corse they would say they wont sell Iraq nukes, its not like they lied before.
[/sarcasm]
They have stated that they plan to destroy the world if they are going to be defeated (obviously a very good reason to let them do whatever they want) Unless you know what he really ment when he said "There can be no world without a communist North Korea"

Again you probably wont recognize a good reason for a war until it turns one of your cities into a radioactive wasteland. My hope is that it's one of your cities. Over here, we (or at least enough) can still recognize a real threat.

how many weapons, ( including bc-weapons to iraq in the 80s), does the us sell per year? and to which nice and peaceloving countries?

[ParraCida]

I love me, everybody else can be my servant or die.




close or what?

[W]

...and with another wave of the hand...

[Ste]

Originally posted by Jammers
Lets assume the next stop on George Bush's World Tour is Korea. North Korea are virtually guaranteed to be conquered using conventional weapons...

I don't think it is a foregone conclusion - they have a nasty amount of ground troops who will fight to the death, and China will probably back them up if it comes down to it.
Not a war anyone wants.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Ste
I don't think it is a foregone conclusion - they have a nasty amount of ground troops who will fight to the death, and China will probably back them up if it comes down to it.
Not a war anyone wants.

Well, not really. North korea has a significant rmy yes, but it is both smaller and more antiquated than the Iraqi army of 1990. It is however much better motivated, which could cause the US some difficulties, but not many. If it came down to it, the US and South Korea could mop up the North quite efficiently in a conventional war.

And as for China, it is not 1950 anymore, and the LAST thing China wants is to get involved in a war on behalf of NK. They will use diplomatic and economic pressure, more to inconvenience the US than to help Korea, but they will most assuredly not get involved. And with macArthur good and dead, this time the US will be quite careful about not offending or threatening the Chinese.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Vermillion

I would really doubt it would be as easy as that. Doesn't North Korea have chemical and biological weapons. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this I'm just going on badly remembered articles I've read. The current leadership of North Korea would be rather likely to use every single weapon they can lay their hands on before simply surrendering. For one thing they know they'd be on trials for crimes against humanity unless they arranged some sort of amnesty.




PS Would South Korea really support the US going in, they'd certainly suffer a horrendously large amount of material damage if an invasion did occur in anything resembling a conventional style.

[Sandsnake]

The "plan" for a korean conflict is rather short...however we DO expect to lose 2 entire divisions in the first 3 days, which is how long it would take us to move our main effort into position...

It would be a short, yet extremely bloody conflict..the only concern I have would be that if we WERE fighting a two-front war, would be the US being able to handle two fronts, have enough left at home for defense, and replace losses in any manner short of a vietnam-style draft.

In the case of any conflict at this point, Clinton tore us down so badly, that the military would have to bloat itself horribly with new recruits, a situation that is only exacerbated by the fact that over half of the fighting force will be reservists who only trained "1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year"...(the most notorious friendly-fire incident in afghanistan was caused by a reservist..)

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
The "plan" for a korean conflict is rather short...however we DO expect to lose 2 entire divisions in the first 3 days, which is how long it would take us to move our main effort into position...

It would be a short, yet extremely bloody conflict..the only concern I have would be that if we WERE fighting a two-front war, would be the US being able to handle two fronts, have enough left at home for defense, and replace losses in any manner short of a vietnam-style draft.

You mean just like the last time?

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
PS Would South Korea really support the US going in, they'd certainly suffer a horrendously large amount of material damage if an invasion did occur in anything resembling a conventional style.

South Korea would support pretty much anything we chose to do...the US has been the wall keeping NK out since the armistice (A state of war still exists with the last 50 years being nothing more than a cease-fire). Removal of US support from the region would guarantee war within a couple of years.

US forces already occupy the DMZ, with another Army division in Hawaii, and a Marine division in Japan, nevermind the entire 7th fleet being within a week or two's sail.

The US maintains a very heavy presence in the pacific and SK are staunch allies in the face of a nuclear capable enemy that is already at war with them, belligerent, and somewhat psychopathic. The last thing South Korea wants is NK getting ahold of nukes. It's the whole India/Pakistan situation repeating with the participants far more likely to do something.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by ParraCida
You mean just like the last time?

Yes, but without that fatal error of threatening Chinese infrastructure.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
South Korea would support pretty much anything we chose to do...the US has been the wall keeping NK out since the armistice (A state of war still exists with the last 50 years being nothing more than a cease-fire). Removal of US support from the region would guarantee war within a couple of years.

US forces already occupy the DMZ, with another Army division in Hawaii, and a Marine division in Japan, nevermind the entire 7th fleet being within a week or two's sail.

The US maintains a very heavy presence in the pacific and SK are staunch allies in the face of a nuclear capable enemy that is already at war with them, belligerent, and somewhat psychopathic. The last thing South Korea wants is NK getting ahold of nukes. It's the whole India/Pakistan situation repeating with the participants far more likely to do something.

Right I'll admit that I don't know much about this particular scenario. However didn't vermillion just say that the north korean army was actually antiquated etc, seeing as in matters such as this he's usually fairly reliable I took this to mean that South Korea with her American F-16s and large industrial capacity would actually be able to take on the malnourished and underequipped People's Republic Of Korea Army. It's one thing to be thankful for protection it's quite another when someone tells you they're going to attack the genocidal nutcase next door who might have weapons of mass destruction, and they want your support and bases for their troops. It's not exactly a good way to get votes, or keep current voters alive for that matter.

As you said you expect to lose two divisions in the first few days before American troops arrive en masse, in that time I'd say North Korea might have a fair go at turning the south into a giant smoking crater. You don't stick your head in the lion's den and twat him across the face unless you fancy an early grave. I'd dare say that while the south would support maintaining the status quo and preventing the north getting nukes they might falter at invading the North and taking the brunt of the response.

[Archi]

As I see it NK has had the nukes for awhile. Today they opened up one of their nuclear plants for creating more nukes. The reason they did this is because we cut off the aid we were sending them. The reason we are so ticked off about the nukes is that their country is starving and the idiots in power in NK keep building nukes. It would be like giving your brother-in-law money to feed his family and he turns around and buys booze with it. Would you keep giving him money or would you tell him to stop drinking and feed his family? I think the NK's are doing this to try to get their aid back, by using their nukes as a bargaining chip like they did with Clinton. I think the Bush administration will lay low with NK ( I hope they do) and let the Japanese, South Korean's and Chinese to mediate the situation. SK and China are the real key players with this. SK has the most to lose and the common ancestory. The Chinese have the history of friendship and the most leverage with NK. Unlike Iraq, NK has a Superpower class neighbor on her borders and I think we should exploit this.

As a side note, the reason that the US is involved is because the aid we sent them to build that nuke plant (another brilliant Clinton move). It was supposed to be used to provide electricity and power (not the nuke kind) for the North Korean people, not to make weapons with. So for those of you who think that the U.S. is sticking it's nose where it dont belong remember that hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars were sent in heating oil (by the supertanker) and food to NK for her people, on top of the nuke plant we helped them build.

Remember we dont send just troops, the US is the most benevolent nation in human history with our foreign aid, though we are mocked, ridiculed and burned in effigy for our trouble.

I may be off base, but that is how I see it.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Archi
Remember we dont send just troops, the US is the most benevolent nation in human history with our foreign aid, though we are mocked, ridiculed and burned in effigy for our trouble.

I may be off base, but that is how I see it.

Well you got the last paragraph right anyway. America is so far away from being a fluffy benevolent nation that I'm genuinely amused you think otherwise

[Ste]

Some quite scary facts I just found:

US Military Statistics:

Military branches Department of the Army, Department of the Navy (includes Marine Corps), Department of the Air Force
note:the Coast Guard is normally subordinate to the Department of Transportation, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy

Military manpower - military age 18 years of age

Military manpower - availability males age 15-49:70,502,691 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service males age 15-49: 2,056,762 (2000 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure $276.7 billion (FY1999 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP 3.2% (FY1999 est.)

North Korea Military Statistics:

Military branches: Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces

Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 5,943,735 (2001 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,574,050 (2001 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 179,136 (2001 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $3.7 billion to $4.9 billion (FY98 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 25% to 33% (FY98 est.)

Now I know that The Korean army will not be well-equipped.
But it is quite worrying that they have a larger army.
I wouldn't say they will be pushovers.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Miasma
Compare military expenditures instead.

yeh i know, but if your fighting relatively closely on foreign soil, army numbers will count for quite a lot.

[Archi]

Well you got the last paragraph right anyway. America is so far away from being a fluffy benevolent nation that I'm genuinely amused you think otherwise

Well I always argued that America is a 2 edged sword. I never did say we were fluffy, if you take money from us, there will be accountability. However I challenge you to find a nation that has given more to the people's around the world in aid. Telling NK to spend some of their GNP to feed their people instead of building nukes, doesnt sound so unreasonable to me. Besides there is no gurantee that they will do what you ask anyway (ask France after WW2). So though we may "lean" on people to do what we want, there are no assurances they will. However we give anyway, simply because the American people think it is the decent thing to do. Africa is a prime example, we have no strategic interests there, but we spend billions of dollars in aid for that impoverished continent. What do we get? Our people being drug through the streets in Somalia. However we still send them aid. I agree we are not "fluffy" but we are also not the cold, ruthless people that you think we are.

The politicians may use aid for arm-twisting, but no American wants to sit by and see people starve when we have so much.

[Mistwraith]

Originally posted by Ste
TBH this front looks a lot more serious than Iraq.
It would be interesting though to see how Russia and China are responding to the threat as they are much nearer than the US.

That really depends on your point of view, Korea maybe exploring the nuclear bomb, but in the end its a hard thing to do because it involves more thought ..... Iraq a known aggressor, with a grudge against most of europe as well as the US having chemical weapons which are smaller, easier to transport and much easier to use.

Its not a good situation, but the Iraqi's with their fundamentalists, and unknown stocks of who knows what are a darn sight more dangerous and volatile than a country openly saying we are going for nuclear weapons.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Archi
However I challenge you to find a nation that has given more to the people's around the world in aid.

Graph showing % of GNP given in aid As you can see US is right at the bottom. Surely the most powerful nation could, and should, give more to help the developing world achieve their most basic needs? But that is completely off-topic...

[EDIT]wow just found this, not even do the US not give the most percentagewise but JAPAN give more amountwise... and Germany and France used to...
very interesting... but still off topic [/EDIT]

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Ste
Graph showing % of GNP given in aid As you can see US is right at the bottom. Surely the most powerful nation could, and should, give more to help the developing world achieve their most basic needs? But that is completely off-topic...

How about some cold hard dollar amounts? The GNP % we spent on defense was 3% (276 billion) from the other post, so obviously that chart doesn't say much.

I'd like to know how much those countires, like Denmark, actually spent in dollars.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Cochese
How about some cold hard dollar amounts? The GNP % we spent on defense was 3% (276 billion) from the other post, so obviously that chart doesn't say much.

I'd like to know how much those countires, like Denmark, actually spent in dollars.

See edit but also the other thread.

[Cochese]

Ah, thanx m8

[Archi]

Graph showing % of GNP given in aid As you can see US is right at the bottom. Surely the most powerful nation could, and should, give more to help the developing world achieve their most basic needs? But that is completely off-topic...

Fair enough, point taken;

I could argue that those statisics are only from 1992 to present and doesnt include rebuilding from the ground up, of Western Europe, Japan and South Korea.

That I did not say percentage of GNP but total dollars.

That the countries above us dont need the massive military expenditures as we do (another argument altogether that I dont intend to get into here). Out of curiousity do you have the stats for the % of GNP that is spent on Defence by the above mentioned countries?

However it is off the subject of NK and I will go back to my original debate. If we send a country massive amounts of humanitarian aid, why cant we tell them to quit making nukes and to start growing some food?

[Vermillion]

Ok look, The North Koreans have a huge but antiquated military here, their ait force is composed of older style MiGs -21s mosty, with a few -29s and Su modern varians, but with an ancient command and control system based around old Soviet ground radar and a couple of Mainstays.

They are reported to have almost 4000 tanks, but included in this number is 800 T-62s, 475 T-59s, -55s and -54s, and 250 T-34s. Thats right, WW2 vintage T-34s. The most modern tank they have is the equivalent of a Soviet T-80, but without composite armour.

Their troops, while highly motivated are poorly trained, and their training consists of human wave and infiltration tactics, not mission style objectives. They are due to their numbers more than a match for the South korean army, but the US could defeat the entire nation without ever setting foot on the peninsula. Anyone remember Serbia? Ranging from the south of the Peninsula, local carriers and Japan, the US could obtain air supremacy in about 12 hours, and then take their time bombing the North into oblivion.

Its that simple. The North is reported to have Chemical weapons, and its possible they might have 1st generation (so old) biological weapons, but that is unknown. But so what? The war could be prosecuted and ended in fairly short order entirely from the air. The US would not even have to be as circumspect in its targets as it was in Serbia. The NK air force would not stand a snowball's chance in hell, and US casualties and losses would come almost entirely from SAM and ground fire. Remember the North Korean air defence net is not better, and mot much newer than the Former Yugoslavian defence net, and it at BEST 15 years out of date. UAV, Satellite and HARM would pinpoint and destroy radar in a hurry, and then its all about bombing.


I do not mean to underplay the NK forces, they have a powerful and well organised army. But I think you peple do not fully grasp the sophistication and power of the US military in such a conflict.

I am generally one of the anti-US people on the board, but my experience and work has given me a solid understanding of their military, and the antiquated soviet-era and before army of NK would be destroyed from the air with few problems. The US can be expected to lost more aircraft than in Serbia, perhaps 2 dozen, maybe 30... at most.


Of course, if NK does obtain nukes (which they do NOT already have) then the entire scenario changes for the much worse.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Ste
Graph showing % of GNP given in aid As you can see US is right at the bottom. Surely the most powerful nation could, and should, give more to help the developing world achieve their most basic needs? But that is completely off-topic...

normally I'm pretty anti-yank.


however notice that there is only 0.8% difference between the best and the worst, the scale of the graph makes the diference look alot bigger than it really is, and it sin't raelly all that significant, especially when one considers the amounts of money involved.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
it sin't raelly all that significant, especially when one considers the amounts of money involved.

0.1% of £10 is insignificant.

0.1% of £10,000,000,000 is anything but insignificant.

Please note these figures are for illustrative purposes only.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Archi
However it is off the subject of NK and I will go back to my original debate. If we send a country massive amounts of humanitarian aid, why cant we tell them to quit making nukes and to start growing some food?

It is not the United States simply telling North Korea to quit making nukes. North Korea has agreed not to develop nuclear weapons--first by signing the non-proliferation treaty and again in another separate agreement with the US in 1994. The issue, in my view, is really whether or not North Korea should be held to its agreements (see also, Iraq). All the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty should be concerned about North Korea's (and Iraq's) violations of that treaty. If one believes in the value and validity of international agreements, then one should be prepared to hold nations to their commitments.

Of course North Korea also happens to be starving it's people in order to build weapons, but that practice is fairly unremarkable. :reindeer:

[Mushroom]

SEOUL (Reuters)
North Korea has announced it will expel U.N. nuclear inspectors monitoring a reactor capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons, news agencies in neighbouring South Korea and Japan have reported.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency and Japan's Kyodo news agency on Friday both quoted North Korea's state news agency, which earlier accused the United States of seeking to overthrow the isolated and impoverished communist state's political system.

The North's Korea Central News Agency (KCNA) said a U.S. demand that it scrap its nuclear programme as a condition for talks was a prelude to a surprise U.S. attack.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021227/80/dhgrd.html

This just keeps on getting better and better

[Ste]

Like I said - More serious than the Iraq situation...

[Varangian]

This thing has been festering a long time.
Remeber that the war of the 1950s never ended. There was never a peace treaty.
The North doesnt need to be overrun or absorbed. Understand that revolt for North Koreans is impossible, given their stalinst government.
It's Red China enabling them through subsidies to play this hard core commie game. If that loony tune running the north lobs a nuke, its the chinese that made it possible for him to do so.