Remember, children—it’s not an illegal arms sale when North Korea is selling to an ally in the War on Terror [Chosun Ilbo, English]. Isn’t the T-55 [Wikipedia] like the most produced and exported tank in the history of the planet? Washington couldn’t help arrange for the Ethiopians to get their parts elsewhere?
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
10 Comments
North Korea selling it’s spare parts for tanks (and possibly disassembling it’s functioning tank, too) validates what I have been saying for a long time: tanks are just for show (besided, its aging T-55s would be useless against South Korea’s modern tanks). Non-conventional weapons are far more important. I wouldn’t be surprised if North Korea will use the funds to produce more nuclear weapons. The US government really fudged this one up.
If they’re in Ethiopia then we don’t have to waste ammo on them when Judgment Day comes.
Pathetic. This deal clearly was allowed to go through for the sake of keeping the Norks on board for “Agreed Framework 2.0″ (I’m still using that term in quotes for now.).
What idiot at the administration let this go through without a fess?
The wiki article specifically states (as I knew it would) that the T54/55 series is a thoroughly obsolete model. So your point about the “90,000″ production run of the T-54/55 misses a more important point — that it’s extremely likely that the parts needed for Ethiopian T-54/55 tanks are no longer readily available from former Warsaw Pact state in E Europe, or from the various states of the former USSR.
The Soviets and their client states used to keep almost every single post-WWII tank model they had ever made (and retained for their own military) in operation, for their reserve units. However, since the Cold War ended I’m sure they’ve had to face up to the economic reality of just how enormously expensive this practice was.
I distinctly recall seeing some TV footage in the 90’s of a Czech steel salvage facility energetically cutting up former Soviet tanks for scrap; almost certainly these were T-54/55 model tanks, indeed they probably included successive generation T-62/64 tanks as well. Front line Russina tank diviisons are yet another generation ahead, indeed the most current Russian tank units are three generations ahead of the T55.
A logical consequence is that these countries would also have ended the uneconomic manufacture and storage of spare parts for tanks that no major country’s army wants to maintain in service any longer.
Except of course for the DPRK. DPRK is still wedded to a Stalinist economic model (in its “juche” variant), and they still need their T-55’s operational, since they can’t afford newer models. It’s my strong suspicion that the DPRK may well be the only place left on earth that is still running production lines (or maybe just keeping in storage) various needed T-54/55 parts.
The Ethiopians were recently in action against the Somali Islamist forces, so in order to keep Ethiopian tanks working it was probably essential for the US to assist in keeping their parts resupply channel open.
I see the Chosun Ilbo editorial doesn’t choose to explore this topic, or to go into any length about just what T54-55 parts were needed and how much funding was involved. The funding involved was probably trivial compared to the total funding for overall ROK subsidies to DPRK, nevertheless the opportunity to seize upon supposed US “hypocrisy” was just too “golden” to pass up.
Sperwer’s marvelous turn of phrase about Korean “circumstantial pettifoggery” comes to mind.
The Ethiopians are in action (by “action” I mean the firing of actual warshots) against a shared enemy of the US (admittedly, for their own good reasons). Still, that’s more than one can say for the ROK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh well, the Islamists aren’t after the ROK, so it’s perfectly reasonable for the Chosen Ilbo to make the unstated assumption that the Islamists of Somalia definitely aren’t an ROK problem.
Indeed, I find myself agreeing with the Chosun Ilbo editorial writer’s final point — it’s questionable as to just how much longer the ground defense of the ROK is supposed to remain a “US problem” (to include the commitment to the ROK of a couple of battalions of US first-line tanks, ones that could find ready usage elsewhere in the world).
I’m more troubled by the decision to let North Korea get its $25 million back — and indulging it as it waits for the money to clear.
“Tanks are just for show”.
My goodness, you wouldn’t say that if a tank came crashing through the door of wherever you are sitting and reading this right now — even if it was just an old M4 Sherman.
The Somali Islamists recently had an opportunity to find this out for themselves; those “technical” pickup trucks (featured in “Black Hawk Down”) that they like to run around in, with heavy machine guns or recoilless rifles mounted in the back, make marvelously exhilarating targets for even the relatively untrained crew of an obsolete model tank.
A tank can sit in a motor pool for 20 years, soaking up expensive amounts of taxpayer money and drawing the sneers of passersby. But it’s ultimately a “non-economic” proposition — it can justify its entire previous existence with just 5 or 10 minutes of intense firing. (credit: author Herman Wouk, writing on battleships in WWII).
“My goodness, you wouldn’t say that if a tank came crashing through the door of wherever you are sitting and reading this right now — even if it was just an old M4 Sherman.”
One of my specialties was taking out tanks, so trust me when I say they are just for show -especially when I’m talking about the Korean peninsula where the next war would be a non-conventional one. Besides, tanks nowadays are just not worth the expense for us. They have little operational use in the type of conflicts that our forces are getting involved in. Look at it this way: what’s more needed in Iraq, tanks or properly armored APCs and trucks?
It’s not that long ago the Ethiopians were our enemies.
Anyhoo — it is certainly hypocritical of the U.S. to have allowed this (in the case of Ethiopia and Yemen) and the U.S. certainly has lost the moral authority to compel other nations to interfere with North Korean shipping.
It was a non-binding resolution.
“It’s not that long ago the Ethiopians were our enemies…”
And not long before that, under Haile Selassie, they were considered as friends of the US/west.
To include Ethiopian participation in the UN forces defending the ROK during the Korean war.
Maybe the Chosun Ilbo editorial board could call for the transfer of a battalion or two of ROK Army obsolete US model tanks (M47/M48’s) to the Ethiopian Army, since the ROK Army currently has a program to build their own new ones to replace these. That way the Ethiopians can have their T55’s scrapped and the consequent need for a DPRK logistical relationship ended.
If any of your Korean friends happen to be lecturing you about the “loss of US moral authority”, dogbertt, you could suggest this idea to them yourself. Do it gently, though; I wouldn’t want any of them to faint and hit their heads, or suffer a heart attack.
We used to do this with our older US tanks; that’s probably how the ROK’s got them in the first place (doubt if they had to pay for them but I admit I don’t know that for sure).
These days all our “allies” are much too particular to consider taking US “hand me downs”, but I imagine the Ethiopians haven’t been spoiled yet.