As a fan of Cold War kitch, I have to confess - shit like this still gives me a boner:
Coincidentally, that comes from this Yahoo! report, in which you can find:
Keeping up its bellicose rhetoric, North Korea’s Embassy in Moscow released a statement Monday dismissing U.S. demands that North Korea scrap its nuclear program as “a game even kids won’t play.”
You know, when I was a kid, my Mom (God bless her) used to tell me never to play with two things - matches and thermonuclear devices…
PS: Those was entirely too much time on their hands should check out this analysis piece in the Straits Times.
(Hat Tip to Peking Duck, who has a blog the design of which I can only dream)
9 Comments
I am not clear on these repeated analysts comments about “US military is overstretched”. From what I can tell, the Army is quite stretched. The USMC, Navy, and USAF much less so. The USAF, for example, is burning a lot less flight hours on Operations Northern and Southern watch in Iraq than a year ago.
I’m no expert on NorK coastal defenses, but Pyongyang looks damn close to the water. Send in a Marine Expeditionary Force, with a few carriers and lots of USAF, and it would seem that we could occupy their capitol and devastate their army.
I don’t suggest that this rather fanciful scenario is in the offing or even desirable… merely that the current travails of the US Army in Iraq are not as immobilizing to US options as many imply.
MG
MG:
putting the regime on the run is not the problem-that would be just the beginning of the nightmare. you’re still going to have to go in there and assert control. The US is in no condition to do that. Do you really think a Marine expeditionary force would be able to maintain authority over what would be a very hostile population? And the PRC will simply not permit unilateral US military action in the DPRK. If the administration is smart they considered your scenario and rejected it almost as quickly.
As I said earlier, I am not advocating a large USMC raid. I am simply suggesting that the options available to the US are not as constrained as some reporting suggests.
MG
A couple of points - firstly, while the US probably could put the regime on the run, Prince Roy is probably correct in pointing out the difficulty in maintaining control. If the South Koreans were willing to provide the manpower, it might be possible, but the problem is that Seoul doesn’t seen very high on the “March North” option at the current moment, especially if it means losing Seoul to an initial artillery barrage.
However, I beg to differ with Prince Roy’s assertion that the PRC will not tolerate a unilateral move against the DPRK. Granted, they intervened in 1950, but a number of very important factors have changed since then. President Hu is reported to have told Kim Jong-il that if the Americans attack, don’t come begging to Beijing. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that reported statements coming from Beijing don’t mean all that much (and besides, Mao is reported to have told Jong-il’s father much the same thing even after the Incheon Landing), but like I said before - this isn’t 1950, and I don’t think the Chinese would risk military action against a superior opponent to protect a loose-cannon (and practically worthless) “ally” virtually begging to be attacked. Ten years from now? Perhaps. But not now.
Marmot I think you misunderstand the PRC’s mindset. The PRC couldn’t really give a damn about the DPRK at this point. What they would give a damn about is a US-installed regime right at their doorstep. That’s what they would fight against, not to prop up some two-bit cold war relic. The bare bones fact of the matter is that any developments in NK will have to be implemented in consultation with Beijing.
I agree, but only partly (although you are probably dead on about my misunderstanding of the Chinese mindset). While the Chinese would no doubt be concerned about a US-installed regime right on their doorstep, air-strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities could be conducted without provoking a Chinese military response. Moreover, I think China would be willing to deal with a unified Korea as long as American ground troops remained south of the 38th, with South Korean troops responsible for occupation duties north of the line. However, there is another issue that should be discussed, and that’s capabilities. Even if China wished to conduct military operations against American forces in North Korea, does it really have the capabilities to do so? The PLA’s air and naval arms are notoriously weak, and the Yugoslav and Iraqi conflicts revealed a number of serious shortcomings in the PLA’s ability to conduct conventional operations against American forces (and those forces, like South Korea, which are American-equipped and follow American operational doctrine) - Iraq and Yugoslavia were, after all, armed with much the same equipment as the PLA. Not to take anything away from Chinese numbers, but to be frank, even when confronted with a much less-capable American force during the Korean War, the Chinese did not fair too well once American strategy adjusted for the numerical imbalance; when the Armistice Agreement was signed, the front line was moving in only one direction, and that was North.
Check out a thought-provoking, link-filled spinoff post on North Korean art by Peter S., who’s graduating from sporadic commenter to rookie blogger - http://www.oranckay.net/blog/i.....#200309031
[Very nice of you, "ramondo."]
RE: “shit…still gives me a boner”
I was going to tell The Marmot that if he’d like a little extra excitement this evening, I have few NK “anti-US imperialism” posters at http://www.oranckay.net/pictur...../index.htm
Gee, that provided more stimulation that the last Akira Fubuki film I downloaded. Who needs dogmeat soup when you’ve got art like that!