Frankly, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with it. China hasn't exactly been shy about how it feels about Taiwan.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the country needs those weapons. Let's face it, the US isn't about to intervene on Taiwain's behalf if China invades -- especially if China promises not to damage the existing industrial infrastructure. Powell gave a scolding whimper to Putin after the man's recent power play; I'd expect about the same to China if Taiwan were re-acquired. Apparently we believe in democracy only if the country's particularly oil-intensive and defenseless.
This is me being bitter. My bad if I'm being hyperbolic, but somehow I don't feel I am at this point.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If China moves against Taiwan, would North Korea use that opportunity to invade South Korea?
I have a feeling that the United States may broker a deal with China which would allow China to invade Taiwan without US intervention in exchange for Chinese containment of North Korea.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If North Korea invaded the South, the battle would be over long before we could deploy enough forces to the region with the capability of being other than a speed bump.
The token US presence there is exactly that, a token.
The South would put up a fight, but I suspect would fall rather quickly to a country that has done nothing but build up it's military.
This is, of course, assuming the entire invasion doesn't evaporate in a mushroom cloud of conventional weapons from both sides.
posted
I think you're being conservative in those casualty estimates - North Korea's stockpiles of conventional weapons would be enough to turn large portions of South Korea into a fireball, never mind deploying troops in the field.
posted
This has been smoldering on our back burner for years. It's only a matter of time before we have to give it our attention. I'm really surprised it hasn't exploded in our faces before now. The hatred between those people runs deep and is centuries old. I feel like no matter how we handle this, ultimately there will be a fight and it we won't be able to actually do anything about it.
Of course, this is just my opinion. Others may see this as being simplistic...go figure.
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
As for the current arrangement serving as a deterent to North Korean ambitions, I think that's more a lack of North Korean interest rather than a calculated ability to win a conflict.
Simply put, North Korea isn't in a position that it feels the need to risk an all-or-nothing gamble on a battle with the South.
And there isn't a guarantee China would aid North Korea or remain neutral. North Korea is unpredictable enough - a unified Korea under the Northern banner would make the Chinese a little concerned.
posted
It's not simplistic, but I think people on both sides have settled into a "cold war" that hasn't been nudged into more heated action.
If North Korea wanted to take action, now would be the time while the US is stretched so thinly throughout the world that we would be hard-pressed to mount an effective military campaign on yet another front.
However, I think North Korea enjoys playing the role of nut but isn't quite willing to gamble it all quite yet.
posted
I think the Chinese would be concerned as well if Korea unified. As it stands now, if there was a conflict, I believe China would not take either side but would take the opportunity to take control of Korea.
I wish we had more sources so we could compare that information with the Washington Post article.
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but are we prepared to fend off a 1.1 million man army?
And not one that will break under pressure because it was made of hastily drafted conscripts, but soldiers who will cheerfully engage in human wave tactics?
Are these the same planners who over-estimated the situation in Iraq?
As to the North Korean interest - I don't know. They started talks on nuclear weapons programs in exchange for food, but that is such an absurd proposition, it can't last for long.
posted
Q1) No, of course not. Especially since the UN won't back us if we do fight.
Q2) Once again no---even if we did have more troops in Korea, if China attacked, we would be toast (nice and crispy) before we could get out of the barracks.
Q3) Probably, but if several more years pass before the conflict, that may change.
Nuclear weapons for food is absurd. The thing that worries me is that the NKorean government seems so unpredictable. They may say one thing and then do something totally different.
Aren't world politics grand?
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think North Korea is playing the fool, but after the "mushroom cloud" incident, they rather quickly offered to allow third-party inspectors to examine the site to confirm the non-nuclear nature of the bang.
Apparently, even North Korea heard the puckering around the world.
posted
I think you're right. This is one of those times when I would love to be in a place where I could hear what all sides are thinking. As it stands, all we can do is gather information from sources that only give us parts and pieces of the entire story.
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that the North Koreans would be able to mass their million man army and march, fly, or hop over the border is ludicrous. It's almost a certainty that we have broken their encryption and we'll know what orders are given and where the troops are going and when. We have awacs, satellites, and drone planes that will see them and guide our missiles that have superior range when they move. This is assuming that they make it over the most heavilly mined area in the world intact, of course.
posted
As usual, Storm comes to the table with great information and insight. Thanks for linking this interesting article.
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple of mine-killers on the border could help clear up the problem.
And you may well be right in assessing South Korea's missile programs. The Patriot missile defense system has been highly touted and denounced by critics, so I don't know if we could effectively stop North Korean inbound.
My concern boils down to a land war in Asia - the infamous million man army could not appear in South Korea overnight, but friendly commanders cannot overestimate the power of fresh reserves versus better trained, highly skilled but exhausted defenders.
posted
Er..don't take my post as expertise. I certainly might be wrong. I just read the newspaper and have access to google like anyone else. If anyone has better info, feel free to post info to that effect.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you're not an expert---but it was a good article. I enjoy your posts, Storm, because you do have good insights. Your word may not be the end all, but you always seem to have something intelligent to say about topics. I don't feel that way about everyone. In fact, I'm a bit cynical about sources until someone actually brings something in that seems to have value.
My concern with Korea still roots in their nuclear possibilities.
[ September 22, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Jess N ]
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Seriously. How many of you remember the China Jet/U.S. Spyplane incident from a few years back?
If something of that nature happens, I seriously doubt diplomacy would be a viable option.
It is now, but the tension is so high, it is just waiting for a pinprick in order to burst.
DAMMIT! If only China wasn't socialist, there wouldn't be an issue.
They would definately tone down their rhetoric if they were completely surrounded by Democracies.
China enjoys favored nation status with the US and in the UN. The real decision if war broke out is would a unified Democratic Korea pose a threat to China or would China be willing to allow it to work itself out on it's own.
It would be nice if South Korea had even better trading relations with China.
But another thing to remember.
Japan attacked the United States out of desparation for energy.
North Korea has large food shortages and China is not exactly pouring any aid in at this point.
Is their pride so great as to lead them to attack instead of swallow their pride and admit they need help and make the changes necessary to do so?
When they reach the line in which they have critical mass, which decision will they choose?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, you raised excellent points all around and they certainly do much to forstall my persistent doom and gloom regarding future conflict between North and South Korea.
We're really all dilettantes in this thread. Maybe someone who really knows their stuff will poke their head in and give us their thoughts. Though, unfortunately, the military folks who know their stuff don't post here all that often.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I have a clue...but my info was second hand from soldiers who were posted there. They were told right up front that they were there simply as a delaying tactic to preserve a toehold for the rest of the US's forces to land and carry the day.
Some units are not expected to survive at all...under the most favorable plan.
Things are different now, but we still have plenty of troops to do this....but not if we want to occupy anywhere else now.
I am not saying it would be easy, but the best military minds (the ones who warned Rumsfield that his plan wouldn't work in the long run) say it is our best plan...unless we want war, which is what would happen if we began shipping more troops into Korea instead of taking them out.
We don't want to escalate it more than we already have, right?
posted
Yeah . . not only is China a Communist nation, but its a Communist nation with a mostly capitalist economy. It calls itself socialist (with Chinese influences/patterns/modifications), but they don't have a command economy, just a large government. The economy's activity is fundamentally capitalist -- that is, business opportunities are created and developed (under incredibly lax regulations, notably) by independently operating businesses which are motivated primarily by profit.
China's only a bit more socialist than the US is, and probably less so than most of Europe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever the Chinese leadership calls itself, China is currently far less socialist than the UnitedStates. Except for the People'sArmy, government bureaucrats, and Party functionaries, there is no government-guaranteed medical care, government retirement benefits program, free housing, free food, nor any other government social welfare program for the current generation of adults. The stipend to the overwhelming majority of past retirees isn't enough for minimal survival. Public education and public healthcare are guaranteed for only one child per family.
Currently, China would be far less socialist than the UnitedStates even if one eliminated the US's SocialSecurity, Medicare, Medicaid, Child Health benefits, health aid to pregnant women and new mothers, etc, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, housing vouchers, food stamps, etc, guaranteed public education for half of the children, free school breakfast/lunch, tax deductions for dependents, mortgage interest tax deductions, and negative income tax for working poor families.
posted
"Japan attacked the United States out of desperation for energy." "What?"
Churchill and Roosevelt placed an embargo (with cooperation from the Free Dutch and Free French) against Japanese purchase and importation of steel, rubber, oil, and all other potential war materiel to provoke Japan into attacking the US so that America would have publicly-accepted grounds for entering the EuropeanWar via Japan's Axis alliance with Germany.
I went in and read some more of the articles that were at the website, from the current issue. There's some very eye-opening info in there. And some idea of what may really be going on in the military, without filtering it through what the government or news media thinks we should know.
An article on the 10 mistakes history will record about the Iraq conflict was very, very powerful.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Would Kerry pull our troops out of South Korea to send them to Iraq? If he did, would or wouldn't North Korea invade? Is it a reasonable question to wonder about?"
About the only realistic threat that the NorthKoreans present is to the soldiers stationed on the DeMilitarizedZone, the destruction of Seoul and a few other towns similarly near the DMZ, and a few random explosions elsewhere from NK missiles.
Admittedly, Dubya has given the go ahead for the NorthKorean regime to convert their nuclear program into a weapons production program. But whether NK is doing so is an open question -- China would not be pleased -- as is whether those weapons would be nuclear bombs or (radioactive) dirty bombs. It's a lot tougher to create a nuclear explosion than might be gleaned through publicly available information sources: which are extremely misleading as to the particulars. Even the NorthKoreans wouldn't know whether their design works until after the first test by explosion.
And you totally misread the US's ability to project troop strength from the Afghanistan and Iraq War preparations; which occurred without even slightly inconveniencing the US civilian population, other than families of soldiers. Between USmiltary cargo planes, FederalExpress/etc cargo planes, and just the number of commercial jetliners which had to be grounded for lack of customers after 9/11, the entire USmilitary and nearly all USmilitary equipment smaller than armored personnel carriers could be in SouthKorea faster than a USnaval fleet could sail from SanDiego to SouthKorea. The limiting factors on speed of deployment are airport capacities and political will.
"How many of you remember the China Jet/U.S. Spyplane incident from a few years back?"
I assume you are refering to the accident which Dubya escalated into an Incident to convince American jingoists to support his "war president" StarWars missile defense fantasies.
"A couple of mine-killers on the border could help clear up the problem."
Any mine-clearing vehicles, tanks, personnel carriers, or supply trucks trying to cross the DMZ would merely be barbeques for roasting NorthKorean troops. Even if the US and SouthKoreans were kind enough to allow those mine-killers to operate freely, there are more than enough backup air-dropped anti-tank mines and cluster-bomb anti-personnel mines to replace whatever mines could be cleared.
"are we prepared to fend off a 1.1 million man army? And not one that will break under pressure because it was made of hastily drafted conscripts, but soldiers who will cheerfully engage in human wave tactics?"
It'd be a charnel house. Between RollingThunder operations and cluster bombs, any gathering of human waves would be broken easily and quickly. About the only thing that a human wave attack would do in a modern war -- ie one in which the opponent enjoys US-style air superiority and technology -- is gross out and sicken the soldiers assigned the task of breaking them up, as well as the soldiers assigned to the burial details cleaning up the battlefield afterward.
posted
North Korea's threat has been greatly exaggerated, both by Pyongyang and Washington, DC.
Of course, there is a certifiable loon on the throne in North Korea, which never makes peace there a sure bet.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
1. When I said mine-killers, I referred to large conventional explosives designed to clear minefields.
I fully concur that mine-sweepers working to clear the fields would be easy pickings from motivated defenders.
2. FAE explosives and similar munitions would be spectacularly effective against human wave attacks, but I don't know if there are any at the US base and I suspect use of such weapons are against the Geneva convention. Technically, using a .50 caliber machine gun against soft (human) targets is a violation.
Well, at least according to the M.P. I talked to at Fort Mac.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
