Comments on: U.N. brings tidings of joy! http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/ Korea... in Blog Format Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:20:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: kimbob http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8656 kimbob Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:13:05 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8656 "To remove these conditions we need to have a clear declaration by the UN that they would rebuff an attack by the north on the ROK. " - David Well the flaw in this logic is very obvious. This will not do a hill of beans to counter 30,000 artillary guns pointed at Seoul, which even with one round could cause devastating casualties. I do not believe the NK is afraid of the UN. They are afraid of the US though. There is just no way for preemptive military option that I can see here. The best that could be done is to choke off the lifeline of the NK, by pressuring China, and start putting sanctions on NK. Then wait for whatever the hell that comes after it. “To remove these conditions we need to have a clear declaration by the UN that they would rebuff an attack by the north on the ROK. ” - David

Well the flaw in this logic is very obvious. This will not do a hill of beans to counter 30,000 artillary guns pointed at Seoul, which even with one round could cause devastating casualties. I do not believe the NK is afraid of the UN. They are afraid of the US though. There is just no way for preemptive military option that I can see here. The best that could be done is to choke off the lifeline of the NK, by pressuring China, and start putting sanctions on NK. Then wait for whatever the hell that comes after it.

]]> By: Michael http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8655 Michael Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:14:33 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8655 Yes, too easy, for many reasons. The UN would never make the sort of preemptive declaration (ie, say they would retaliate against the North before such an attack actually took place)--especially with China involved. Also, don't expect South Korea to raise its defense budget significantly with Roh in office. Aside from an economy that's in the toilet, there's no political impetus to up it from less than 3 percent to 5 percent of GDP when the current administration sees no threat from the North. On the other side, the North would most likely retaliate directly against the South if attacked, regardless of "special alliances" being dropped. As the Korean saying goes, "I die, you die." Yes, too easy, for many reasons. The UN would never make the sort of preemptive declaration (ie, say they would retaliate against the North before such an attack actually took place)–especially with China involved. Also, don’t expect South Korea to raise its defense budget significantly with Roh in office. Aside from an economy that’s in the toilet, there’s no political impetus to up it from less than 3 percent to 5 percent of GDP when the current administration sees no threat from the North. On the other side, the North would most likely retaliate directly against the South if attacked, regardless of “special alliances” being dropped. As the Korean saying goes, “I die, you die.”

]]> By: David http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8654 David Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:06:22 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8654 Since this thread is rather neglected I hope Marmot doesn?€™t mind me very briefly posting what I think is the best strategy for the US, and the best option for all countries involved in the current crisis. What we need to create is a position whereby North Korea can be strategically attacked, with minimal causalities and to maximum effect, without an option for retaliation. Currently the NK regime is bound by preset conditions to attack the south if US attacks the north. To remove these conditions we need to have a clear declaration by the UN that they would rebuff an attack by the north on the ROK. It seems to me this would be entirely feasible. Rhetoric about military reunification aside, all indications suggest the primary purpose of Kim Jong Il and his cohorts to be the maintaining of their party and position at all costs. Unlike at the beginning of the Korean War, a position of retaliation against an aggression has to be loud and clear before any action is taken. Troops must be removed from the south in order to force the ROK to increase its power and ability. A defense budget of more than 5% of GDP would seem sufficient to create such a position. A withdrawal of troops and a breaking of special alliances with the south would also mean that an American strategic attack on nuclear facilities would be seen as an attempt only to remove these weapons making sites and not an attack on the NK regime. These precautions would trap the North into compliance and take any pressure of a full American attack away. NK?€™s options would quickly run out and peaceful solutions for political and economic change would surface as military strength becomes less important than survival in the face of a crumbling country. Too easy? Since this thread is rather neglected I hope Marmot doesn?€™t mind me very briefly posting what I think is the best strategy for the US, and the best option for all countries involved in the current crisis.

What we need to create is a position whereby North Korea can be strategically attacked, with minimal causalities and to maximum effect, without an option for retaliation. Currently the NK regime is bound by preset conditions to attack the south if US attacks the north.

To remove these conditions we need to have a clear declaration by the UN that they would rebuff an attack by the north on the ROK. It seems to me this would be entirely feasible. Rhetoric about military reunification aside, all indications suggest the primary purpose of Kim Jong Il and his cohorts to be the maintaining of their party and position at all costs. Unlike at the beginning of the Korean War, a position of retaliation against an aggression has to be loud and clear before any action is taken.

Troops must be removed from the south in order to force the ROK to increase its power and ability. A defense budget of more than 5% of GDP would seem sufficient to create such a position. A withdrawal of troops and a breaking of special alliances with the south would also mean that an American strategic attack on nuclear facilities would be seen as an attempt only to remove these weapons making sites and not an attack on the NK regime.

These precautions would trap the North into compliance and take any pressure of a full American attack away. NK?€™s options would quickly run out and peaceful solutions for political and economic change would surface as military strength becomes less important than survival in the face of a crumbling country.

Too easy?

]]> By: David http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8653 David Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:17:54 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8653 Besides the risk which Kimbob elequently pointed out there are other reasons to attack now. If NK has the opportunity to create a formidible arsonal of nuclear weapons then in the event of a collasped regime it will be that much more dangerous for neighbouring countries, and that much harder to enter the counry and remove the leadership. North Korean may never be a direct threat to the US, but the US has a unique opportunity to remove a growing threat now before the only option becomes passivity. Besides the risk which Kimbob elequently pointed out there are other reasons to attack now. If NK has the opportunity to create a formidible arsonal of nuclear weapons then in the event of a collasped regime it will be that much more dangerous for neighbouring countries, and that much harder to enter the counry and remove the leadership.
North Korean may never be a direct threat to the US, but the US has a unique opportunity to remove a growing threat now before the only option becomes passivity.

]]> By: kimbob http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8652 kimbob Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:55:31 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8652 Here's your explanation Ralph. North Korea has a bad record of selling missile technology to rogue nations like Iran, Lybia, and yes, Iraq. Also, North Korea is suffering from cash shortage. Also, North Korea is a rogue nation itself. Put it altogether, what do you get? A possibility that a rogue nation selling nuclear technology to other rogue nations, and heaven for bid, to terrorists - all for hard earned green cash. Isn't that enough of a threat to the world peace deserving much concern? I think so. It's hard to believe that you have not read or heard about this in the news. Here’s your explanation Ralph. North Korea has a bad record of selling missile technology to rogue nations like Iran, Lybia, and yes, Iraq. Also, North Korea is suffering from cash shortage. Also, North Korea is a rogue nation itself. Put it altogether, what do you get? A possibility that a rogue nation selling nuclear technology to other rogue nations, and heaven for bid, to terrorists - all for hard earned green cash.

Isn’t that enough of a threat to the world peace deserving much concern? I think so. It’s hard to believe that you have not read or heard about this in the news.

]]> By: Ralph http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8651 Ralph Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:02:00 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8651 Explain to me how US security is threatened by the lack of human rights in NK. Explain to me how a country with less than 10 nuclear weapons and no record thus far of having tested a nuclear weapon be a threat to the US with its thousands of thermonuclear weapons each with over a megaton of lethal urban destroying capability be a threat to the US. What about the threat of the SU during the Cold War. They certainly had the capability of destroying the US and vice versa with their thousands of thermonuclear weapons on proven ICBMs. Get serious people don't expect us to react to your panic-inducing fakery opinions. Explain to me how US security is threatened by the lack of human rights in NK. Explain to me how a country with less than 10 nuclear weapons and no record thus far of having tested a nuclear weapon be a threat to the US with its thousands of thermonuclear weapons each with over a megaton of lethal urban destroying capability be a threat to the US. What about the threat of the SU during the Cold War. They certainly had the capability of destroying the US and vice versa with their thousands of thermonuclear weapons on proven ICBMs. Get serious people don’t expect us to react to your panic-inducing fakery opinions.

]]> By: David http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8650 David Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:22:14 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8650 well... I guess it's good that north Korea is giving some signs of optimism. However, there is nothing in the words ?€œco-existence?€? that suggests they are willing to move any closer to an agreement. Supposing America was to serverly losen it's alliance with the ROK and then stratigicly bomb NK, who would NK then retaliate against? In combination with a policy of containment I think this might just work. Just an idea... well… I guess it’s good that north Korea is giving some signs of optimism. However, there is nothing in the words ?€œco-existence?€? that suggests they are willing to move any closer to an agreement.
Supposing America was to serverly losen it’s alliance with the ROK and then stratigicly bomb NK, who would NK then retaliate against? In combination with a policy of containment I think this might just work. Just an idea…

]]> By: kimbob http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8649 kimbob Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:09:09 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8649 Maybe. But it was also the UN which came to the rescue of South Korea in 1950. In an unrelated note, watch this wicked old video footage never seen before. Watch the booby trap going off blowing up the truck and the soldiers around it. This gives you an ideal what the US soldiers are facing in Iraq: <a href="http://cafe3.ktdom.com/vietvet/vbtrap.htm" rel="nofollow">http://cafe3.ktdom.com/vietvet/vbtrap.htm</a> Maybe. But it was also the UN which came to the rescue of South Korea in 1950.

In an unrelated note, watch this wicked old video footage never seen before. Watch the booby trap going off blowing up the truck and the soldiers around it. This gives you an ideal what the US soldiers are facing in Iraq:

http://cafe3.ktdom.com/vietvet/vbtrap.htm

]]> By: BigFire http://www.rjkoehler.com/2004/11/25/un-brings-tidings-of-joy/#comment-8648 BigFire Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:33:23 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1272#comment-8648 Remember, when UN comes to your country and says "We're here to help", you can be certain that your country is truely screwed. Remember, when UN comes to your country and says “We’re here to help”, you can be certain that your country is truely screwed.

]]>