<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Attack on Yongbyon would result in 430,000 casulties?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/</link>
	<description>Korea... in Blog Format</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: oranckay</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15921</link>
		<dc:creator>oranckay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15921</guid>
		<description>BTW, the story Mr. Marmot ever so responsibly "provides a link to" also does not misquote you... in fact, it doesn't quote you at all. It, too, says you obtained the documents in question.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BTW, the story Mr. Marmot ever so responsibly &#8220;provides a link to&#8221; also does not misquote you&#8230; in fact, it doesn&#8217;t quote you at all. It, too, says you obtained the documents in question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oranckay</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15920</link>
		<dc:creator>oranckay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15920</guid>
		<description>Mr. Kristensen,

It appears that two of Mr. Marmot's commenters misread his post and misrepresented you in at least comments 5 and 13, maybe more.  

What is the difference between you and those commenters?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Kristensen,</p>
<p>It appears that two of Mr. Marmot&#8217;s commenters misread his post and misrepresented you in at least comments 5 and 13, maybe more.  </p>
<p>What is the difference between you and those commenters?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Marmot</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15919</link>
		<dc:creator>The Marmot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15919</guid>
		<description>hkristensen -- Actually, I didn't credit you with the statement.  Dr. Large reportedly made the statements using government documents obtained by yourself.  I thought this was clear from the post, although I will edit it to make it even more clearer.

Next time you credit statements to me, at least do the readers a favor by providing a link to where the statement was made.

Actually, I did.  The problem might be, however, that it's in Korean.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hkristensen &#8212; Actually, I didn&#8217;t credit you with the statement.  Dr. Large reportedly made the statements using government documents obtained by yourself.  I thought this was clear from the post, although I will edit it to make it even more clearer.</p>
<p>Next time you credit statements to me, at least do the readers a favor by providing a link to where the statement was made.</p>
<p>Actually, I did.  The problem might be, however, that it&#8217;s in Korean.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hkristensen</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15918</link>
		<dc:creator>hkristensen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15918</guid>
		<description>I noticed that I am being credited (or rather miscredited) on this blog with statements that I have never made.

The May 3, 2005, blog "Attack on Yongbyon would result in 430,000 casulties?" and (and numerous subsequent comments) credit me with statements that I have never made and intentions that I don't have. According to the blog:

"He also noted that if the U.S. military were to drop a nuclear warhead on North Korea, it would choose a time when the winds were blowing toward South Korea, not toward China or Russia."

I have never made such a statement. In the extreme situation of nuclear use, I think the US decision of when to use a nuclear weapons would be determined 
not by which way the winds are blowing (although fallout over civilians is a limiting factor in how strikes are pre-planed), but primarily by ensuring destruction of a time-critical target.

Next time you credit statements to me, at least do the readers a favor by providing a link to where the statement was made.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I noticed that I am being credited (or rather miscredited) on this blog with statements that I have never made.</p>
<p>The May 3, 2005, blog &#8220;Attack on Yongbyon would result in 430,000 casulties?&#8221; and (and numerous subsequent comments) credit me with statements that I have never made and intentions that I don&#8217;t have. According to the blog:</p>
<p>&#8220;He also noted that if the U.S. military were to drop a nuclear warhead on North Korea, it would choose a time when the winds were blowing toward South Korea, not toward China or Russia.&#8221;</p>
<p>I have never made such a statement. In the extreme situation of nuclear use, I think the US decision of when to use a nuclear weapons would be determined<br />
not by which way the winds are blowing (although fallout over civilians is a limiting factor in how strikes are pre-planed), but primarily by ensuring destruction of a time-critical target.</p>
<p>Next time you credit statements to me, at least do the readers a favor by providing a link to where the statement was made.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baduk</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15917</link>
		<dc:creator>baduk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2005 08:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15917</guid>
		<description>When the last U.S. troops leave Korea, SK will automatically belong to China's sphere of influence.  The unification will come in the form of NK's communist party ruling entire Korea.

China trust KJI to be loyal.  Hu will appoint KJI to be the ruler of Korea.

Korean people will have to listen to Chairman Hu through KJI.  No more talk about being the "balancer", but just to be happy being alive and serving the Great Chinese people.

That is where Korea is heading.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When the last U.S. troops leave Korea, SK will automatically belong to China&#8217;s sphere of influence.  The unification will come in the form of NK&#8217;s communist party ruling entire Korea.</p>
<p>China trust KJI to be loyal.  Hu will appoint KJI to be the ruler of Korea.</p>
<p>Korean people will have to listen to Chairman Hu through KJI.  No more talk about being the &#8220;balancer&#8221;, but just to be happy being alive and serving the Great Chinese people.</p>
<p>That is where Korea is heading.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baduk</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15916</link>
		<dc:creator>baduk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2005 08:02:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15916</guid>
		<description>Nathaniel and Curious

You guys are just repeating what is printed on the newspapers.  That is what China wants you to believe.

The Chinese has been consistently spending 10% of their GNP in purchasing weapon systems.  They already have enough nuclear capability to fight the U.S. if necessary.

However, they have been supplying NK with oil despite the heavy objections from the U.S. and the world community.  Everybody knows oil is the most important material for modern warfare.  Why China is doing this?

I believe KJI is the puppet of the Chinese communist party.  If you ask for the evidence, I only give the historical fact that China rescued Kim's regime from the total collapse during the Korean War.  And, the recent hurried trip by KJI to China on Hu?€™s prompt that was followed by the explosion at YongChun.  And, the SinYuiJu city debacle.

I only have circumstantial evidences.  If you were Chairman Hu, would you let this fact slip out to the press?  And, reveal the fact that he started the NK nuke crisis in the first place?  I don't think so!  The communication between Hu and KJI would be top secret among top secrets to both governments.  Unless you are a part of the inner circle within these two governments, you would have no idea.

So stop regurgitating stupid newscasters.  They have no idea about the real forces that move history.

I believe that China's aim goes beyond driving out the U.S. forces from SK.  It wants to eat up SK and use Korean troops against Japan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nathaniel and Curious</p>
<p>You guys are just repeating what is printed on the newspapers.  That is what China wants you to believe.</p>
<p>The Chinese has been consistently spending 10% of their GNP in purchasing weapon systems.  They already have enough nuclear capability to fight the U.S. if necessary.</p>
<p>However, they have been supplying NK with oil despite the heavy objections from the U.S. and the world community.  Everybody knows oil is the most important material for modern warfare.  Why China is doing this?</p>
<p>I believe KJI is the puppet of the Chinese communist party.  If you ask for the evidence, I only give the historical fact that China rescued Kim&#8217;s regime from the total collapse during the Korean War.  And, the recent hurried trip by KJI to China on Hu?€™s prompt that was followed by the explosion at YongChun.  And, the SinYuiJu city debacle.</p>
<p>I only have circumstantial evidences.  If you were Chairman Hu, would you let this fact slip out to the press?  And, reveal the fact that he started the NK nuke crisis in the first place?  I don&#8217;t think so!  The communication between Hu and KJI would be top secret among top secrets to both governments.  Unless you are a part of the inner circle within these two governments, you would have no idea.</p>
<p>So stop regurgitating stupid newscasters.  They have no idea about the real forces that move history.</p>
<p>I believe that China&#8217;s aim goes beyond driving out the U.S. forces from SK.  It wants to eat up SK and use Korean troops against Japan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Curious</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15915</link>
		<dc:creator>Curious</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2005 10:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15915</guid>
		<description>China's main interest in this, right or wrong, is to see NK transform gradually, since a sudden crisis would create a flood of refugees and potentially destabilize the situation in China's northeastern provinces.  They may also wish to see NKunder any form of governmentas a buffer state between them and the US.  That is all.  Beyond that, I don't think they have any vested interest in whether it's the current or another regime that's running the place.  It's just a questionfor themof preventing a chaotic situation that they can't control.

Likewise for South Korea's motives in promoting the Sunshine Policythe idea is to manage a gradual transformation of the country, since there appears to be a great fear of the humanitarian and economic crisis that would unfold with a sudden collapse.  (And yes, there's already a humanitarian crisis in the North, but there are those who would evidently prefer to see it contained there and not spilling over the North's bordersagain, questionable though this position may be.)

Despite all that, a sudden collapse may yet occur.  Certainly, the amount of information coming out of (and presumably getting into) the North seems to have gone up dramatically in the last year or so.  More and more reports seem to be coming out of China about people crossing back and forth more or less freely over the China-NK border, videos and DVDs getting into the North, people making cellphone calls from inside the North, and so on; and with the increased mobility inside the country (evidently) due to (a) market reforms and (b) a collapse in internal travel controls (see Andrei Lankov's many informative articles in the Korea Times, for example), news from the northern parts of NKwhere there is much more contact with Chinais probably spreading to other parts of the country far from the border.  There seems to be a dynamic at work in the North that is already well underway, and may precipitate a turn of events far more dramatic and sudden than China or the South would wish to see; hence the steps that various governments are taking to plan for the contingency of a sudden collapse.  (I'm sure even SK is making such plans, despite the recently published story about their not wishing to make joint plans with the US.)

Who knows what the future will bring?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>China&#8217;s main interest in this, right or wrong, is to see NK transform gradually, since a sudden crisis would create a flood of refugees and potentially destabilize the situation in China&#8217;s northeastern provinces.  They may also wish to see NKunder any form of governmentas a buffer state between them and the US.  That is all.  Beyond that, I don&#8217;t think they have any vested interest in whether it&#8217;s the current or another regime that&#8217;s running the place.  It&#8217;s just a questionfor themof preventing a chaotic situation that they can&#8217;t control.</p>
<p>Likewise for South Korea&#8217;s motives in promoting the Sunshine Policythe idea is to manage a gradual transformation of the country, since there appears to be a great fear of the humanitarian and economic crisis that would unfold with a sudden collapse.  (And yes, there&#8217;s already a humanitarian crisis in the North, but there are those who would evidently prefer to see it contained there and not spilling over the North&#8217;s bordersagain, questionable though this position may be.)</p>
<p>Despite all that, a sudden collapse may yet occur.  Certainly, the amount of information coming out of (and presumably getting into) the North seems to have gone up dramatically in the last year or so.  More and more reports seem to be coming out of China about people crossing back and forth more or less freely over the China-NK border, videos and DVDs getting into the North, people making cellphone calls from inside the North, and so on; and with the increased mobility inside the country (evidently) due to (a) market reforms and (b) a collapse in internal travel controls (see Andrei Lankov&#8217;s many informative articles in the Korea Times, for example), news from the northern parts of NKwhere there is much more contact with Chinais probably spreading to other parts of the country far from the border.  There seems to be a dynamic at work in the North that is already well underway, and may precipitate a turn of events far more dramatic and sudden than China or the South would wish to see; hence the steps that various governments are taking to plan for the contingency of a sudden collapse.  (I&#8217;m sure even SK is making such plans, despite the recently published story about their not wishing to make joint plans with the US.)</p>
<p>Who knows what the future will bring?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nathaniel</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15914</link>
		<dc:creator>nathaniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2005 09:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15914</guid>
		<description>You can't push back the North Korean nuke program by a decade because it is a finished program. So what if you take out their production facilities, they still have some bombs they can use. "If we don't get much, then NK would have no reason to start a war" That is just silly, they would have a legit reason to start a war as soon as they were attacked. "The Japanese attack will show the NK the power of free countries and may even speed regime change in NK" You must be living in some sort of dream world. Attacks by outside forces generally solidify support for the current leader as the people rally around them, especially if that outside power is a historical enemy as Japan is. 

You may believe China and North Korea have a master slave relationship, but you likely would be the only one. Within  the last 3 months I have heard talks by a journalist, a NGO worker, and a former analyst for the CIA, all of whom have had numerous dealings with China and North Korea. All of them say that Chinese diplomats have admitted off the recrod they have little control over North Korea and would prefer if they were no longer allies. I trust them a little more then I trust you who has consitenly shown to have way out there ideas that do not seemed to be grounded in any sort of reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can&#8217;t push back the North Korean nuke program by a decade because it is a finished program. So what if you take out their production facilities, they still have some bombs they can use. &#8220;If we don&#8217;t get much, then NK would have no reason to start a war&#8221; That is just silly, they would have a legit reason to start a war as soon as they were attacked. &#8220;The Japanese attack will show the NK the power of free countries and may even speed regime change in NK&#8221; You must be living in some sort of dream world. Attacks by outside forces generally solidify support for the current leader as the people rally around them, especially if that outside power is a historical enemy as Japan is. </p>
<p>You may believe China and North Korea have a master slave relationship, but you likely would be the only one. Within  the last 3 months I have heard talks by a journalist, a NGO worker, and a former analyst for the CIA, all of whom have had numerous dealings with China and North Korea. All of them say that Chinese diplomats have admitted off the recrod they have little control over North Korea and would prefer if they were no longer allies. I trust them a little more then I trust you who has consitenly shown to have way out there ideas that do not seemed to be grounded in any sort of reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baduk</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15913</link>
		<dc:creator>baduk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2005 08:54:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15913</guid>
		<description>Nathaniel,

"The North doen?€™t really listen to China right now, why do you think they would listen to them if they were attacked?"

- I do not think anybody know the relationship between NK and China well enough to make this statement.  I am one of the view that Hu holds strong sway of KJI.  I think these two are in the master-slave mode.
China probably does not want war and they can stop NK.  Hu can call Kim and tell him "Do nothing!".  I think Kim will listen.  If he does not, one of his pro-Chinese faction will assassinate him.  



"The chances are even if someone attacked North Korea they would miss some."

-  If we get the most it then we could push NK nuke program back by a decade.  If we don't get much, then NK would have no reason to start a war.  We win either way.

The Japanese attack will show NK the power of free countries and may even speed the regime change in NK.

I think it is a win-win situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nathaniel,</p>
<p>&#8220;The North doen?€™t really listen to China right now, why do you think they would listen to them if they were attacked?&#8221;</p>
<p>- I do not think anybody know the relationship between NK and China well enough to make this statement.  I am one of the view that Hu holds strong sway of KJI.  I think these two are in the master-slave mode.<br />
China probably does not want war and they can stop NK.  Hu can call Kim and tell him &#8220;Do nothing!&#8221;.  I think Kim will listen.  If he does not, one of his pro-Chinese faction will assassinate him.  </p>
<p>&#8220;The chances are even if someone attacked North Korea they would miss some.&#8221;</p>
<p>-  If we get the most it then we could push NK nuke program back by a decade.  If we don&#8217;t get much, then NK would have no reason to start a war.  We win either way.</p>
<p>The Japanese attack will show NK the power of free countries and may even speed the regime change in NK.</p>
<p>I think it is a win-win situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nathaniel</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/03/attack-on-yongbyon-would-result-in-430000-casulties/#comment-15912</link>
		<dc:creator>nathaniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2005 22:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=1589#comment-15912</guid>
		<description>baduk, please get your facts correct. Israel attacked Iraq not Iran. Comparing Iraq in 81 to North Korea now is silly. Among many differences, one was that at that time the US was supporting Iraq which is a large reason the Iraqis did not strike back. So what the North doesn't have a navy, one does not need a navy to start a war. In event of any military event, China will have next no control over the North. The North doen't really listen to China right now, why do you think they would listen to them if they were attacked? Your idea is well beyond long shot and the first consideration one would take before considering any action is what is most likely to work. I think anyone would say the current action, which is not much, has a far higher chance to work then a preemptive Japanese strike. 

I am not even getting into any of the details regarding whether any country even knows where the North Korean bombs are or all of the nuclear sites. The chances are even if someone attacked North Korea they would miss some.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>baduk, please get your facts correct. Israel attacked Iraq not Iran. Comparing Iraq in 81 to North Korea now is silly. Among many differences, one was that at that time the US was supporting Iraq which is a large reason the Iraqis did not strike back. So what the North doesn&#8217;t have a navy, one does not need a navy to start a war. In event of any military event, China will have next no control over the North. The North doen&#8217;t really listen to China right now, why do you think they would listen to them if they were attacked? Your idea is well beyond long shot and the first consideration one would take before considering any action is what is most likely to work. I think anyone would say the current action, which is not much, has a far higher chance to work then a preemptive Japanese strike. </p>
<p>I am not even getting into any of the details regarding whether any country even knows where the North Korean bombs are or all of the nuclear sites. The chances are even if someone attacked North Korea they would miss some.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
