Korea... next?

[walker 0]

Hi all

I said this once already but just to make it clear.

George Bush Jnr. will not invade NK there is No Oil!

North Korea invading South Korea now that is a posibility.

With NK under economic and political stress and thinking that the TBA is acting beligerently while being filled with Chicken Hawks and a Commander in Chief who is proven to freeze and dither it may decide to strike first.

Now that is worrying.

Kind Regards Walker

[Tovarish 0]

This is a Defense Intelligence Agency document released under the Freedom of Information Act. Pretty good readout on NK's military. It's also 5.5 MB in pdf form.

US military handbook on North Korea

Great find! Plus that site has a lot of other interesting doccuments

[walker 0]

Hi all

If NK were to invade there would be several advantages to doing it now.

As I have said George Bush Jnr. is seen by many other nations as a weak leader who will freeze in emergency and dither over important decisions as he is doing with the recall of congress to impliment the emergency powers recomended in the 9/11 commision. Many along with him in TBA are seen outside the US as chicken hawks who would be too afraid of North Korean Nukes to act.

The US is badly overstretched. NK could invade and seize a large amount of South Korea before any US forces could be mustered as a task force and sent to South east Asia.

It would have at least 3 months perhaps as much as 6 months to loot as much as possible then retreat slowly out demolishing as it went Leaving a destabalised south and as many spies as it wanted. It would take its own sweet time spinning out its retreat something it proved expert at in the last stage of the Korean war.

It could probably hold on to the South Korean Capital Seoul intact along with 30 or 40 miles of South korea closest to the border.

The loot and the economic power of Seoul run like a Hong Kong or as Shanghai is by the Chinese may be motivation enough. It is also the kind of situaltion that China would encourage to test TBA's resolve as a prelude to Invading Taiwan.

The thing that would be a big hint would be China calling in its loans that TBA took out to pay for the US defecit thus trigering economic disaster in the US.

Kind Regards Walker

[llauma 0]

The population is growing rapidly and HIV/AIDS and other diseases are spreading so obviously something is wrong and we need to act.

(un?)fortunately the latter could solve the former in the long run.

In many african countries half of the children will die before they reach five years of age, so we do already have a high mortality and a high population growth. Even with a growing HIV/AIDS problem the population will grow, but perhaps not as fast.

So instead of speculating what should be done with th NK and the possible future nuke threat we should try to fight the even bigger threats to humanity. Millions are dying in less developed countries and the huge majority of them wouldn't had died if they just had received the help we affor if we just had the will.

To start with we could see that the developing countries didn't have to pay more to us in debts and interest than they receive from us.. But it's pretty naive to think that something will change for the better. The people in the western countries are more conserned about Britney Spears complexion than real issues in this world.

Hurray for us!

[blackdog~ 0]

Hi all

If NK were to invade there would be several advantages to doing it now.

As I have said George Bush Jnr. is seen by many other nations as a weak leader who will freeze in emergency and dither over important decisions as he is doing with the recall of congress to impliment the emergency powers recomended in the 9/11 commision. Many along with him in TBA are seen outside the US as chicken hawks who would be too afraid of North Korean Nukes to act.

The US is badly overstretched. NK could invade and seize a large amount of South Korea before any US forces could be mustered as a task force and sent to South east Asia.

It would have at least 3 months perhaps as much as 6 months to loot as much as possible then retreat slowly out demolishing as it went Leaving a destabalised south and as many spies as it wanted. It would take its own sweet time spinning out its retreat something it proved expert at in the last stage of the Korean war.

It could probably hold on to the South Korean Capital Seoul intact along with 30 or 40 miles of South korea closest to the border.

The loot and the economic power of Seoul run like a Hong Kong or as Shanghai is by the Chinese may be motivation enough. It is also the kind of situaltion that China would encourage to test TBA's resolve as a prelude to Invading Taiwan.

The thing that would be a big hint would be China calling in its loans that TBA took out to pay for the US defecit thus trigering economic disaster in the US.

Kind Regards Walker

Do you think the UK or any other country could do any better?

[red oct 2]

Hi all

If NK were to invade there would be several advantages to doing it now.

As I have said George Bush Jnr. is seen by many other nations as a weak leader who will freeze in emergency and dither over important decisions as he is doing with the recall of congress to impliment the emergency powers recomended in the 9/11 commision. Many along with him in TBA are seen outside the US as chicken hawks who would be too afraid of North Korean Nukes to act.

The US is badly overstretched. NK could invade and seize a large amount of South Korea before any US forces could be mustered as a task force and sent to South east Asia.

It would have at least 3 months perhaps as much as 6 months to loot as much as possible then retreat slowly out demolishing as it went Leaving a destabalised south and as many spies as it wanted. It would take its own sweet time spinning out its retreat something it proved expert at in the last stage of the Korean war.

It could probably hold on to the South Korean Capital Seoul intact along with 30 or 40 miles of South korea closest to the border.

The loot and the economic power of Seoul run like a Hong Kong or as Shanghai is by the Chinese may be motivation enough. It is also the kind of situaltion that China would encourage to test TBA's resolve as a prelude to Invading Taiwan.

The thing that would be a big hint would be China calling in its loans that TBA took out to pay for the US defecit thus trigering economic disaster in the US.

Kind Regards Walker

i think your just a wee bit underestimating South Korea's military capability. soldiers in S.K. are better trained, and better equiped. North Korea only has numbers, and old hardware. and in todays world that won't guarantee victory. China learned that lesson in 1979 when they invaded Vietnam.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm

with the right stradegy, i would bet that South Korea would be able to keep them at a stale-mate just long enough that Kim Jong-il decides he can't win, and pulls back or his already decaying country just collaspes.

[walker 0]

Do you think the UK or any other country could do any better?

Hi blackdog~

No.

I think as always the UK in that case, and probably enough of the UN, would folow the US into Korea same as they did the first time.

However as I already pointed out it would take 3 to 6 months to get together a task force even including the UN forces and if the Rusians could be Pursuaded to chip in perhaps 2 months.

The Chinese would not put up with crossing into NK and would go Nuke in defense of NK if the US or UN used nukes that is the current agreement between China and NK. NK would in any case go Nuke if Kim Jong-il thought he was about to loose power.

Kim Jong-il would string out the peace talks as his nation did before I am fairly sure the net result would be South Korea minus Seoul and 40 miles of teritory.

I should point out that these are the kind of scenarios that get looked at when the leader of a country is percieved as weak as George Bush Jnr. is. The US is seen as having few allies and little clout in the UN. Its forces are overstretched. The Generals and Hawks in NK and China will be discussing this in their weekly threat assesments.

@ Red Oct I agree SK forces are good quality but big numbers tell in attack.

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

i think your just a wee bit underestimating South Korea's military capability. soldiers in S.K. are better trained, and better equiped. North Korea only has numbers, and old hardware. and in todays world that won't guarantee victory. China learned that lesson in 1979 when they invaded Vietnam.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm

with the right stradegy, i would bet that South Korea would be able to keep them at a stale-mate just long enough that Kim Jong-il decides he can't win, and pulls back or his already decaying country just collaspes.

Having better equipment and better training is no guarentee either these days as the US can tell you in Iraq.

South Korea, without any outside help (ie US), would not be able to withstand NK one bit. You also forget that this is a country divided, and in the end, have a strong desire for reunification.

Have you seen the student demonstrations in SK?

And what makes you think Kim would come to a conclusion that he "can't win?" Remember. He has the nuclear arms should he be against the ropes.

[868 0]

Nice thoughts by all.

How 'bout them apples?

[walker 0]

Hi all

I dont think the scenario is a nice one. north korea is lead by a despot who most agree has some decided psychological problems.

The main issue though is how he percieves the US. Let us look at the world as he perceives it; then we might understand what he may do.

At the moment he sees what will be in the weekly SWOT analysis for the results of an invasion of South Korea.

1. The US with a leader who he has seen will freeze in an emergency and dither on defense decisions.

2. The US overstretched militarily.

3. A US administration that is distracted from its goals by fantasy enemies.

4. A US with few allies in the UN and somewhat isolated

5. An admistration full of chicken hawks who their own biographies say are not prepaired to risk their own lives in war.

6. He now has Nukes and the capability to get them to American soil so the Chickenhawks wont fire.

7. The true wariors in the US administration are in the wrong jobs or like Donald Rumsfeld out of favour lame ducks.

8. The US administration is openly talking of invasion which will make him so afraid he may see attack as his best form of defense.

9. The US administration gloating over defections something Kim Jong-il hates.

10. In Kim Jong-il's defence cabinet the hawks will be telling him this.

Now honestly tell me does that scenario make you feel safe.

Kind Regards Walker

[red oct 2]

Quote[/b] ]Having better equipment and better training is no guarentee either these days as the US can tell you in Iraq.

True, but that has largely to do w/ the Bush administrations incompentence and Dumbsfeld misjudging the aftermath. that is also a completely different theater of war. its not two armies fighting in a country, its one army fighting rebels and terrorists all hiding within cities. its also a different country, different culture, and a different enviroment.

Quote[/b] ]South Korea, without any outside help (ie US), would not be able to withstand NK one bit.

could you at least explain to me why? they may cause some damage w/ their artillery but even that has its limits. and SK has just as much artillery and rockets pointed at the north themselves. the North also has very limited fuel that they get from China. w/out fuel for their vehicles they aren't going to be going real far into SK unless they plan on walking all the way to Seoul as they carry all their ammo on their backs and push their tanks.

Quote[/b] ]You also forget that this is a country divided, and in the end, have a strong desire for reunification.

Have you seen the student demonstrations in SK?

ok so i'll give you that one...

Quote[/b] ]

And what makes you think Kim would come to a conclusion that he "can't win?" Remember. He has the nuclear arms should he be against the ropes.

as do we and the rest of the world and because of that he's probaly not going to bother trying to invade the south all together. right know he's just trying to keep his country afloat and stay in power.

[Pathy 0]

I'm seeing a few armchair generals coming in here proclaiming that the USA would crush the North Koreans because thier equipment is so advanced ect.....

Do these people not learn? Wake up, you have had, in recent conflicts, Vietnam and Iraq, in BOTH you are technologically superior, but in BOTH it has been shown it does not always matter......

Air superiority does not matter when your land forces are swamped by 1 million NK soliders. History also teaches us that these south east asian soldiers are nothing but tough, and walking great distances doesnt seem to put them out.

[stgn 39]

Sure you need to have a defence according to your needs but isn't it more likely that people who are friends with their neighbours can keep the house unlocked than a rich and rude man living in the ghetto?

Ha you are just as niaeve as I am but sadly again and again its shown that even you best freinds can turn on you

But then again why should a roude and rich man have to lock his dor either is it illigal to be rich and rude?? rudeness is his own problem cause then he will not likely have meany freinds I don't see why he if does not want to should give money to the getto I belive that is his own decision and problem.

STGN

[pajama 0]

South East Asians?

Btw...has any of you ever watch the Discovery Times: Children of the Secret State?

Its really sad to know what the condition is really like over there

[walker 0]

Hi Pajama

Yes as has already been stated Kim Jong-il is the nutty despot of country that is a complete mess.

However his base of power is his peoples fear of attack by the west.

At the moment all that is happening is that the west is feeding that fear.

The real problem is the weakness of the US commander in chief and his administration.

Kim Jong-il will have seen the video of George Bush Jnr. freezing when America was under attack. He knows also that George Bush Jnr. will dither on defense decisions. He knows the US administration is mostly Chicken hawks who talk big but are not prepaired to put their own lives on the line. He knows the US Millitary is overstretched.

Why do you think that NK anounced its nukes and rockets to to the world so soon after 9/11?

In the Cuban Missile Chrisis JFK stared the Kruschev and Castro down.

George Bush Jnr. is no JFK.

With the NK Missile Chrisis George Bush Jnr blinked.

Kim Jong-il new once US soil was under direct threat their was no fear of George Bush Jnr. or the Chicken Hawks doing a thing about it. The proof is in the pudding. Not a thing has been done.

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ] True, but that has largely to do w/ the Bush administrations incompentence and Dumbsfeld misjudging the aftermath. that is also a completely different theater of war. its not two armies fighting in a country, its one army fighting rebels and terrorists all hiding within cities. its also a different country, different culture, and a different enviroment.

Right....cause Asia doesn't have a history of any wars with guerillas.

Indeed. It is a different theater and culture. It quite possible could be MORE fanatical. Look again at the report posted and the number of Special Forces and transport planes/helicopters NK has. You don't think they are going to be used for sabotage/guerilla warfare? 100K+ just in Special Forces. Might I add the US only has 37000 there and some bombers hours away? Can you tell a South Korean from a North Korean?

Quote[/b] ]could you at least explain to me why? they may cause some damage w/ their artillery but even that has its limits. and SK has just as much artillery and rockets pointed at the north themselves. the North also has very limited fuel that they get from China. w/out fuel for their vehicles they aren't going to be going real far into SK unless they plan on walking all the way to Seoul as they carry all their ammo on their backs and push their tanks.

The North vastly outweighs South Korea in every military aspect, including artillery. Most of NK artillery is already within easy reach of Seoul (SK's artillery is not in range of Pyongyang), and upon the opening of hostilities you can be sure at least part will be used to bombard Seoul. Now SK not only has to worry about the North coming, but also about MASSIVE civilian evacuations for Seoul.

Considering NK knows better then anyone that they are low with oil, don't you tink htey have stockpiled it? Last time I saw a picture I didn't see too many cars on Pyongyang's roads. Remember, NK commits 25% of its GDP toward military.

And as far as walking, they did it in the first war. I imagine they don't complain about having to walk like the US soldiers might.

And in conclusion I give you one more irrefutable truth:

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

[llauma 0]

Sure you need to have a defence according to your needs but isn't it more likely that people who are friends with their neighbours can keep the house unlocked than a rich and rude man living in the ghetto?

Ha you are just as niaeve as I am but sadly again and again its shown that even you best freinds can turn on you

But then again why should a roude and rich man have to lock his dor either is it illigal to be rich and rude?? rudeness is his own problem cause then he will not likely have meany freinds I don't see why he if does not want to should give money to the getto I belive that is his own decision and problem.

STGN

Sure you can never be 100% safe but the word friend means someone you can trust. I'm not saying that it's how it should be I just say how it is. If you can't agree that you can trust a friend more than someone you take advantage of I doubt you would agree on anything because you don't want to agree.

The western countries have a responsibility not only to the citizens within their own borders but to everyone. Not because we are better people who have to help others but because we can help others.

Would you have done anything if you knew 9/11 could have been avoided? Everyday many more people die because we choose not to aid them.

[johnnylump 0]

I think you have to look at the motivations of Kim Jong Il. He leads a clique of maybe 10,000 people who live like we westerners -- cars, cell phones, DVDs, etc. Their chief goal, I would suggest, is to maintain that power and quality of life. His behavior does not suggest he is out to conquer territory or even spread his particular brand of communism, but to stay in charge.

But to stay in power and maintain their lifestyle, Kim Jong Il and the other families need money, and some assurances they won't be invaded. They proliferate missile technology for hard currency. They make nuclear weapons to deter the United States from doing what it did to Saddam.

Kim Jong Il also craves attention, hence their public threats of nuclear war. It's not out of vanity: More attention means more opportunities for international concessions ... that is, free stuff, whether it's a power plant, or food, or technology ... in exchange for "halting" their nuclear program.

Another term for that is blackmail.

Might the North Koreans be crazy enough to force the issue, by conducting a nuclear test? Maybe, if they figured they could win even more international concessions. I'd argue something along those lines would present the most likely scenario for conflict:

In an act of brinkmanship, the North Koreans conduct a test and say they are ready to provide nuclear weapons to any third party who will buy them. In response, the U.S. considers launching airstrikes aimed at NK's nuclear infrastructure, kind of like what Israel did to Iraq in 1981.

Would they? Would we? Honestly, I don't know what would push TBA over the edge to strike NK WMD facilities, because Pyongyang's response is so unpredictable.

It's such an incredible risk. But the alternative _ perhaps a nuclear-armed Iran, as an example _ may be an even worse risk.

So then U.S. planners must ask what is the threshhold for Kim Jong Il to order his artillery along the DMZ to open fire on Seoul? At that point the conflict would certainly escalate. Air and naval power would be brought in to take out the artillery; I imagine troops would probably cross the DMZ from SK, not to occupy cities, at least initially, but to take key passes and other points in an effort to stop the bombardment. And then you've got a ground war.

The question remains for TBA and the rest of the world, at what point does North Korea's nuclear weapons development justify risking the destruction of a first-world city?

[IceFire 0]

Wait, you all want to go to war with NK because they have nukes?

Oh my god! The situation over there, and the situation in Iraq are TOTALLY different.

Iraq was a country with a poorly trained army who really didn't care at all about fighting or anything. They all just dropped their guns, took off their uniforms and walked home as soon as they heard the approach of US troops.

North Korea has a huge army of highly trained, 100% devoted soldiers. The North Korean people are not only willing to die for their country and their great general, they are totally loyal to the state and the doctrinal philosophy of their communist revolution.

North Korea is essentially a Stalinist state. The amount of love and devotion the people and military have for their leader is incredible.

In North Korean schools the professors teach the students about their form of government and it's values in comparison to democracy. They also teach that North Korea wants to have peace and live seperated from other countries within its own ideals, and that it the only reason for its nukes and military is for defensive reasons.

Whether you and I believe that is another story.

The people there believe themselves to be educated about the happenings of world politics and American political tactics and are devoutly against any American action against North Korea.

If the U.S. were to take action against North Korea, it would result in thousands of American casualties. The North Koreans would fight to the bitter death.

Plus they have a nuclear arsenal.

So in conclusion I see NO reason why we would want to take action against North Korea at this time.

I don't believe they would be a threat unless they felt they were threatened.

Plus, Iraq is not just about Nukes. The middle east is a hotbed for terrorists. And we are trying to fight a war on terrorism.

You are not going to find terrorists in North Korea.

Right now, eliminating all terrorists is our major concern.

[EiZei 0]

Plus, Iraq is not just about Nukes. The middle east is a hotbed for terrorists. And we are trying to fight a war on terrorism.

You are not going to find terrorists in North Korea.

Right now, eliminating all terrorists is our major concern.

Should I even bother with replying to that..

[IceFire 0]

What kind of reasoning could you put up to say I'm wrong?

Whatever it is, it's obviousy wrong since the war prevented the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

[Akira 0]

What kind of reasoning could you put up to say I'm wrong?

Whatever it is, it's obviousy wrong since the war prevented the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

If you really think the war in Iraq is about terrorists, then there is nothing that can really be said to you...

Also consider all the human rights abuses TBA gave for a reasoning to go to Iraq, NK has even worse. Plus throw in the healthy dose of ACTUAL proven WMD production in NK and there ain't jack in Iraq...

Well I think you get the picture...

(and if you don't then you are deluded)

[EiZei 0]

And while on the subject about terrorism and North Korea then how come N. Korea has been listed on state department's list of states that sponsor international terrorist activities since 1988?

Don't you find it at least slightly worrying that N. Korea has been selling ballistic missile technology to Iran, Syria, Yemen and Libya amongst others?

[IceFire 0]

What kind of reasoning could you put up to say I'm wrong?

Whatever it is, it's obviousy wrong since the war prevented the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

If you really think the war in Iraq is about terrorists, then there is nothing that can really be said to you...

Also consider all the human rights abuses TBA gave for a reasoning to go to Iraq, NK has even worse. Plus throw in the healthy dose of  ACTUAL proven WMD production in NK and there ain't jack in Iraq...

Well I think you get the picture...

(and if you don't then you are deluded)

You need to learn to seperate what the Govt has to "officially" say and the REAL reasons to go to war.

Sure, on TV what any idiot can watch, they will go on about human rights abuses, and WMD.  They have to say all that stuff to get the "official political" reason to go to war.

Read the papers for once where the govt will be more candid.

Any intelligent person, even the administration will tell you the main reason we went to war was because we needed to cause dramatic political and social change and reform in the Middle East region.  We went in to break the hold of islamic culture on the Arab states there and eliminate the stranglehold that the muslem religion has on the people there.

This is why we are trying to build western style democracy there and eliminate the fundementalist culture that is so dominant over there.

Ofcourse you must get all your information from what they say on the TV(where they have to give out straight official reasonings to everything)

[Akira 0]

What kind of reasoning could you put up to say I'm wrong?

Whatever it is, it's obviousy wrong since the war prevented the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

If you really think the war in Iraq is about terrorists, then there is nothing that can really be said to you...

Also consider all the human rights abuses TBA gave for a reasoning to go to Iraq, NK has even worse. Plus throw in the healthy dose of ACTUAL proven WMD production in NK and there ain't jack in Iraq...

Well I think you get the picture...

(and if you don't then you are deluded)

Hahaha

You need to learn to seperate what the Govt has to "officially" say and the REAL reasons to go to war.

Sure, on TV what any idiot can watch, they will go on about human rights abuses, and WMD. They have to say all that stuff to get the "official political" reason to go to war.

Read the papers for once where the govt will be more candid.

Any intelligent person, even the administration will tell you the real reason we went to war was because we needed to cause dramatic political and social change and reform in the Middle East region. We went in to break the hold of islamic culture on the Arab states there and eliminate the stranglehold that the muslem religion has on the people there.

This is why we are trying to build western style democracy there and eliminate the fundementalist culture that is so dominant over there.

Ah...

So you support the war to support the rascist ethnocentric Neo-Hitleresque policies of the TBA, which must make you a closet (or outright) rascist and/or Neo-Nazi.

Not only that, you support TBA lying to the entire nation about the reasons for war, an illegal and impeachable act.

Quote[/b] ]Ofcourse you must get all your information from what they say on the TV(where they have to give out straight official reasonings to everything)

And you must have the reading comprehension of a 6 year-old, as I stated that the reasons they gave were false.

EDIT: BTW belongs in the Iraq thread...not Korea