Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Korean Situation.

2

Comments

  • #52
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Korea v1.5 would be fought and won by artillery, infantry, and ground vehicles, in that order. Air power would be a factor, but not the deciding one.

    Your severely underestimating the North.

    Yes their equipment is outdated, its also mostly very well maintained.
    Yes numbers are not that important in modern warfare, but they are certainly an advantage.
    North Korea may well be a third world country, but the Army get fed and trained at the cost of everything else.
    They're also a country that has developed homegrown missile technology to a standard good enough to be sold to other countries like Iran.
    The Norths intelligence network is one of the best in the world, one of the Souths major concerns now is they believe there are numerous NK spies in the south.

    Add in the complete and total fanaticism and this is very far from a foregone conclusion. North Korea is most definitely not Iraq.

    This is one of the major reasons the US does not want a conflict here, it would cost them so much in lives, money and time that it could very likely end up been a loss for them.


  • #53
    tubos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 450 ✭✭tubos


    Just stumbled across this thread, I was speaking with a Korean colleague of mine who is a bit wary of the information we are receiving regarding the recent sinking of the vessel, he believes that with the upcoming elections in the south on June 2nd, this situation is playing into the hands of the current government who have been unpopular until now.


  • #54
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    tubos wrote: »
    Just stumbled across this thread, I was speaking with a Korean colleague of mine who is a bit wary of the information we are receiving regarding the recent sinking of the vessel, he believes that with the upcoming elections in the south on June 2nd, this situation is playing into the hands of the current government who have been unpopular until now.
    Personally I think the information we have received is accurate. I mean the SK govt took their time over this, waited for the results of a lengthy international investigation before acting,when it was pretty apparent after a day or so that the North was involved.


  • #55
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    tubos wrote: »
    Just stumbled across this thread, I was speaking with a Korean colleague of mine who is a bit wary of the information we are receiving regarding the recent sinking of the vessel, he believes that with the upcoming elections in the south on June 2nd, this situation is playing into the hands of the current government who have been unpopular until now.

    Yeah elections are on wednesday and people were expecting a backlash against the current administration, the current president (whose election is separate but whose party will be involved in the election on wed) is not liked, for good reason.

    I wouldn't put it past them (the government) but I don't think they'd do this far either.


  • #56
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    I'm not sure how accurate the information is.

    But in my opinion the media have not been informing people that the North claim the waters where the incident occured.
    They also haven't been informing us of the history of such incidences in this disputed area.

    They also have failed to inform us that the warship was part of:
    what the Pentagon has called "one of the world's largest simulated exercises" was underway. This war exercise, known as "Key Resolve/Foal Eagle" was launched on March 8 and was slated to continue until April 30.[16][17]

    The Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise on the West Sea near the Northern Limit Line (NLL) was aimed at keeping a more watchful eye on North Korea as well as training for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in the North. It involved scores of ultra-modern US and South Korean warships equipped with the latest technology

    They didn't really tell us that
    Early reports also suggested that South Korean Navy units shot at an unidentified ship heading towards North Korea.

    A defense official later said that this target may have been a flock of birds that were misidentified on radar :rolleyes:

    So we have a large "military exercise" taking place in disputed waters where previous incidences have occured. Add in a paranoid and trigger happy megolmanical leader in the North and some manner of skirmish where shots are fired by one side and wouldn't you just know it, we got a result.

    :(


  • #57
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    monosharp wrote: »
    Yeah elections are on wednesday and people were expecting a backlash against the current administration, the current president (whose election is separate but whose party will be involved in the election on wed) is not liked, for good reason.

    I wouldn't put it past them (the government) but I don't think they'd do this far either.

    Given how erratic the character in charge is across the border can be it could be a very very dangerous gamble.

    I am sure they are now milking it for everything they can get out of it but I don't think they would sink one of their own ships and kill 40+ of their own sailors.


  • #58
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Blueplanet every report I have read about this has said that the waters are disputed and that there have been numerous incidents in them over the years.


  • #59
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    deadtiger wrote: »
    Blueplanet every report I have read about this has said that the waters are disputed and that there have been numerous incidents in them over the years.
    Really.
    I'm surprised to hear that.
    I guess i don't understand then how posters could come on here and claim things like this.


  • #60
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Really.
    I'm surprised to hear that.
    I guess i don't understand then how posters could come on here and claim things like this.

    Yeah it is 'disputed' kind of. As in the rest of the world (perhaps not china) recognises the Souths claim.

    Its strange because off the Korean East coast there are some islands that are quite far North. The people on these islands choose to join the South after the war so the islands themselves are South Korean territory and North Korea doesn't claim otherwise. But they do claim the waters surrounding these islands (to an extent) are theirs.

    Heres an image that might explain it better.

    maritime-border.bmp

    Above the red line is what the North claims to be the border (not the islands, notice the weird shaping border drawn with the red line.)
    The black dotted line is what the South claim.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    ARGINITE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,718 ✭✭✭ARGINITE


    North Korea will do nothing, they are just saber rattling as normal.
    Last year while I was there I was worried about the North and there nuclear tests, the Korean's I worked with told me not to worry it is normal for the North to do things like that.


  • #62
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    monosharp wrote: »
    Yeah it is 'disputed' kind of. As in the rest of the world (perhaps not china) recognises the Souths claim.
    I think it's "disputed" because while the islands are part of the armistice agreement, the water is not and has been the site of numerous clashes between the 2.

    To resolve the matter would require that the parties of conflict actually agree on a boundary.


  • #63
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    ARGINITE wrote: »
    North Korea will do nothing, they are just saber rattling as normal.
    Last year while I was there I was worried about the North and there nuclear tests, the Korean's I worked with told me not to worry it is normal for the North to do things like that.

    I hope thats the case. This current situation just appears a bit more tense than the previous ones I remember.
    BluePlanet wrote: »
    I think it's "disputed" because while the islands are part of the armistice agreement, the water is not and has been the site of numerous clashes between the 2.

    To resolve the matter would require that the parties of conflict actually agree on a boundary.

    And for them to agree a boundary they have to cease the state of war between them.


  • #64
    ballsymchugh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭ballsymchugh


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    You can argue that the North Vietnamese won Vietnam despite the US having air superiority. It is also worth pointing out that NATO never claimed air superiority over Yugoslavia at under 15,000 feet.

    After the 1991 war, an Iraqi Brigade commander was reported as saying something akin to "After two weeks of air bombardment I lost 5% of my tanks. After two minutes fighting against American tanks, I lost all my tanks"

    Korea v1.5 would be fought and won by artillery, infantry, and ground vehicles, in that order. Air power would be a factor, but not the deciding one.

    NTM


    US soldiers aren't flavour of the year in Pyongyang!!

    monosharp, their missile technology isn't the greatest if they launch something that's hoped to be able to reach japan at least, but falls a few miles out into the sea. iran would want to ask for a receipt on anything they buy from them.
    i wouldn't underestimate the army simply because they're told great stories like the axe incident where an american soldier on the border threw an axe at an NK soldier, only for him to catch it, and throw it back killing the american. these stories, while making most people roll eyes, fill the brainwashed with courage that they should strive for. most north korean kids want to be in the army, it's the highest level of prestige they can get, unless their parents are government officials and it's easier for them to get a job as an official too. but like i said in another thread, many of the army just use it as a means for clothing and food.


  • #65
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    ARGINITE wrote: »
    North Korea will do nothing, they are just saber rattling as normal.
    Last year while I was there I was worried about the North and there nuclear tests, the Korean's I worked with told me not to worry it is normal for the North to do things like that.
    Yeah i'd like to believe that but this "saber rattling" appears to be coming from the South, not the North.
    In their view, they've acted defensively against military aggression being shown them from the South in concert with USA.

    Currenlty the South is now parading around a "anti-submarine exercise".

    Here's hoping they keep their distance this time.


  • #66
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    i wouldn't underestimate the army simply because they're told great stories like the axe incident where an american soldier on the border threw an axe at an NK soldier, only for him to catch it, and throw it back killing the american

    Is that what the North Koreans are being told? Because it doesn't bear much similarity to the real incident.
    I have heard that NK have 10,000 artillery peices aimed at Seoul...

    Somewhat overstated. That said, even a much smaller number would still create plenty of panic and cause mass migration.
    Your severely underestimating the North.

    With respect, I never made any statement about the outcome, or how close-fought it would be. I just said that the main factors were going to be artillery, infantry and ground vehicles over air power, things both sides have in fair abundance. I know of no US soldiers who think that Korea v1.5 would be a cakewalk, most of the US personnel stationed on the border expect to DIP*, but take a lot of the NK momentum with them.
    North Korea may well be a third world country, but the Army get fed and trained at the cost of everything else

    70% of nothing is.. let me do the maths here... still nothing. KPA training is generally limited to regimental level and below infantry tasks. Maneuvering a mechanised battalion consumes massive amounts of fuel. To give you an example, a US tank battalion will consume about 50,000 gallons of fuel in one day of operations (Conservative estimate), fuel that DPRK can ill-afford to spend. (Granted, KPA battalions are smaller, with more fuel-efficient tanks, but the point of expenditure stands). There will be the occasional dog-and-pony shows for the cameras, but they are sually of limited training benefit. Two years ago the Army were instruted to spend more time sleeping instead of training in order to conserve energy: They weren't getting fed enough.
    They also have failed to inform us that the warship was part of:

    what the Pentagon has called "one of the world's largest simulated exercises" was underway. This war exercise, known as "Key Resolve/Foal Eagle" was launched on March 8 and was slated to continue until April 30

    During the Cold War, NATO and WARPAC vessels would routinely conduct exercises against each other, let alone with themselves, (Particularly against submarines, if a submarine was detected, it would be hounded without notification by active sonars until they signified 'you win' by surfacing or managed to escape) and they tended to avoid shooting at each other with live rounds.

    NTM

    *Die In Place


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    ARGINITE wrote: »
    North Korea will do nothing, they are just saber rattling as normal.
    Last year while I was there I was worried about the North and there nuclear tests, the Korean's I worked with told me not to worry it is normal for the North to do things like that.

    Exactly, it's just a load of posturing.


  • #68
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,990 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    The son is trying to emerge from his father's shadow.
    As was said South Korea could already have enacted some sort of revenge and we'll likely not hear about it.


  • #69
    Bob the Seducer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭Bob the Seducer


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Yeah i'd like to believe that but this "saber rattling" appears to be coming from the South, not the North.
    In their view, they've acted defensively against military aggression being shown them from the South in concert with USA.

    Currenlty the South is now parading around a "anti-submarine exercise".

    Here's hoping they keep their distance this time.

    What?

    The international report released in the last few days found the North responsible for the Cheonan's sinking back in March, likely by a torpedo from a mini sub - hence the South's public anti-submarine exercises today.
    It's basically to make the statement "we know what you've done and we know how to deal with it if you try it again".


  • #70
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Is that what the North Koreans are being told? Because it doesn't bear much similarity to the real incident.

    Of course it doesn't, you'd hardly expect them to tell the truth now would you ? ;)
    70% of nothing is.. let me do the maths here... still nothing.

    They're a third world country yes, they are poor yes, but nothing ? I was up there last year at a joint industrial zone, SK companies, NK employees and while it is clearly very backward and poor, your very much over exaggerating the situation.

    You might want to read up on their economy at the moment, wiki is alright to get an overview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Economy

    You should also read up on their military first policy.
    Two years ago the Army were instruted to spend more time sleeping instead of training in order to conserve energy: They weren't getting fed enough.

    Ah I see the North Koreans aren't the only ones getting fed propaganda :pac:


  • #71
    ballsymchugh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭ballsymchugh


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Is that what the North Koreans are being told? Because it doesn't bear much similarity to the real incident.

    as monosharp said, of course it doesn't. but it's what they're taught. just like we were told the stories of fionn mccumhaill and the giants causeway, it's a folklore tale that's taken as truth. trying to keep a straight face while being told this by a guide is pretty hard.
    you can add it to the tales of a new flower blooming in the mountains the day kim il sung was born, even though he was more than likely born in a refugee camp in siberia.
    it's all fantasy, but it's taken as truth by north koreans. or else they're sent to the labour camps.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Bob the Seducer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭Bob the Seducer


    Here's an extract from the North Korean news after the report on the ship sinking came out:

    CPRK Declares Resolute Actions against S. Korea

    Pyongyang, May 25 (KCNA) -- A spokesman of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea Tuesday issued the following statement:

    Traitor Lee Myung Bak of south Korea on Monday made public a "statement to the people" over the case of the sinking of a warship of its puppet army, in which he viciously slandered the DPRK again. He formally announced a ban on the passage of DPRK's ships through waters of the south side, "stop to trade and exchange between the south and the north", the exercise of "the right to self-defense" and the reference of the case to the UNSC, daring vociferate about "responsibility" and "apology".

    Then the chiefs of the puppet ministries of defense, foreign affairs and trade and unification called a joint press conference at which they ballyhooed about follow-up measures.

    This is little short of formally declaring that they would not rule out a war by standing in confrontation with the DPRK to the last.

    It is traitor Lee Myung Bak and his puppet conservative group that should be responsible for the said case, apologize for it and face a punishment as it is a tragic product of their despicable sycophantic and treacherous moves and reckless actions for escalating confrontation with fellow countrymen.

    As far as the "results of investigation" announced by the puppet group are concerned, their conspiratorial nature is brought into bolder relief as the days go by to be ridiculed by the world, as they are peppered with contradictions and doubts.

    Now that traitor Lee Myung Bak is taking the lead in shifting the blame for the case on to the DPRK and formally challenging it with reckless provocations despite the above-said hard reality, the DPRK is compelled to opt for taking resolute punitive measures as it had already declared internally and externally.

    The DPRK had already solemnly declared that it would regard the puppet group's anti-DPRK smear campaign over the sinking of the warship as a declaration of a war against the DPRK and mete out a merciless and strong punishment if the group dare defile its dignity.

    The rest of the article is at this link:
    http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201005/news25/20100525-06ee.html

    This Japanese hosted site gives a translation of the North Korean news, normally a day after it's been published.

    http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm


  • #73
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    They're a third world country yes, they are poor yes, but nothing ? I was up there last year at a joint industrial zone, SK companies, NK employees and while it is clearly very backward and poor, your very much over exaggerating the situation.

    I don't think so. High intensity warfare absolutely eats up resources that NK simply doesn't have a lot of. Most of their Air Force pilots tend to have 30 hours a year or less. I racked up that much in my Cessna in three months. Annual tank gunnery is three to five rounds vs about thirty for a US tanker. Low level infantry maneuver training only takes up a resource that NK has a lot of: Infantry. I've little reason to believe that on a platoon-for-platoon level, KPA infantry isn't every bit as good as ROK infantry in terms of training. It's when you try for synergy that things fall apart for the North.
    You should also read up on their military first policy.

    I am aware of it, which is why I threw out a rather high number of 70%. But unless DPRK has an oil field that I'm not aware of, fuel availability alone is going to be a major constrictor in their training.

    NTM


  • #74
    Lentil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Lentil


    Sabre rattling hopefully. I would hazard a guess that China plays a constant role in mediations behind closed doors with NK as the last thing the Chinese would want is some sort of conflict on their backdoor. So they would hopefully be putting the squeeze on NK as they are NK's biggest supplier of food & arms.


  • #75
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Game theory is so much more fun when one of the actors is insane. :D


  • #76
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I don't think so. High intensity warfare absolutely eats up resources that NK simply doesn't have a lot of. Most of their Air Force pilots tend to have 30 hours a year or less. I racked up that much in my Cessna in three months. Annual tank gunnery is three to five rounds vs about thirty for a US tanker.

    Sorry I think we just had a misunderstanding. Yeah the Norths Air Force + Navy + Armour wouldn't last long against the South or the States. The air force is more or less a given, armour however depends a lot on movement and the lay of the land so while the South and States clearly have the advancement re technology and munitions, the terrain could play a very big factor here.
    I am aware of it, which is why I threw out a rather high number of 70%. But unless DPRK has an oil field that I'm not aware of, fuel availability alone is going to be a major constrictor in their training.

    I'd wager that even if China were not to intervene (which I do believe they would) they would still supply the North. The last thing China wants is a US controlled state on their border.


  • #77
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,622 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Isn't that industrial zone the only true one in the country. You can bet it is in better shape than anywhere else.

    Basically nobody knows who is running North Korea and it seems there is confusion there, this act of aggression at this point of time, along with their currency disaster last year...looks like a mess.


  • #78
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I'd wager that even if China were not to intervene (which I do believe they would) they would still supply the North. The last thing China wants is a US controlled state on their border.

    I don't think the Chinese are under any misconceptions about the outcome of a fight, even if they did supply the DPRK. If it comes to blows, NK will lose. Better for Chinese they not have been supplying them than have been in such an event. The only possibility I can think of where this would not be the case would be if China felt like using a Korean War v1.5 as a distraction for their own grab of some place like the Spratleys.

    NTM


  • #79
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I don't think the Chinese are under any misconceptions about the outcome of a fight, even if they did supply the DPRK. If it comes to blows, NK will lose. Better for Chinese they not have been supplying them than have been in such an event.

    I don't think you quite realise china's position. They will not, under any circumstances, allow a US allied state right on their border. If NK starts to fall to SK/US then China will have no choice but to go to war to take back North Korea as their buffer zone. Its not even a question of 'if', its absolutely guaranteed regardless of the consequences, they could not allow it.

    There are several reasons, most of which I'm sure your aware, but others I guess you don't. North of North Korea, the area that would be known to us as Manchuria, there is a Chinese province with a very large Korean ethnic group. Technically they are Chinese citizens but culturally and ethnically they are Korean, most of them speak Korean. Korea used to be a lot larger then just the peninsula, it used to encompass Manchuria and even parts of present day Russia.

    If the Korean peninsula were united then there would likely be an influx of these Chinese of Korean decent. It would also result in nationalistic sentiment in the province regarding their Korean past.

    The Chinese have enough problems with ethnic tensions, former states looking for more autonomy, Tibet being the one best known to the west. They couldn't allow this to happen, even if this was the only reason, which it most certainly isn't.

    War with NK would mean war with China and thats a war the US would loose.


  • #80
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,622 ✭✭✭maninasia


    I don't see this reading at all...a unified Korea would obivate the need for US bases and presence there. Plus South Korea and China have large mutual interests.


  • #81
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    maninasia wrote: »
    Isn't that industrial zone the only true one in the country. You can bet it is in better shape than anywhere else.

    No there are more zones then Kaesong, I think China has 2. Kaesong is a join zone with SK.

    Oh no your absolutely right of course its in better shape then most of the rest of the country.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    maninasia wrote: »
    I don't see this reading at all...a unified Korea would obivate the need for US bases and presence there. Plus South Korea and China have large mutual interests.

    Obliterate the need for US bases etc ? They would never leave if they had a presence in a state with a border with China.


  • #83
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,622 ✭✭✭maninasia


    I mean as part of post-unification agreement in Korea, it's most likely they would be asked to leave by Koreans, then Koreans would sign a pact with China.


  • #84
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    maninasia wrote: »
    I mean as part of post-unification agreement in Korea,

    Well, a few problems.

    While the older generation Koreans do want re-unification, the younger generations most certainly do not want it for economic reasons. East and West Germany are examples always cited here as arguments against it.

    23 million starving North Koreans descending on a country that until 20 years ago was a police state/dictatorship with a very capitalist mentality. Work (very hard) or starve on the street as homeless, American style.

    I used to work with a lot of North Korean refugees in the South and one of the most common problems was the North Koreans complete inability to take care of themselves financially. I don't mean unable to get work and get a salary I mean manage themselves financially. The system is completely alien to them and 9 times out of 10 they simply cannot adapt to it.

    South Korea is simply incapable of absorbing the North, it would be many times worse then the German reunification.
    it's most likely they would be asked to leave by Koreans, then Koreans would sign a pact with China.

    They were asked to leave the South a few years ago (Under the former president Roh Moo-hyun or his predecessor I can't remember) and they refused, or rather publically they were asked to leave, privately they refused and publically it was hushed up.

    Koreans have a very strange relationship with the US. Some of them despise them because of the division of Korea. Many people don't realise this but the blame for the division of Korea can largely be placed at the feet of Harry Truman and Roosevelt. Truman asked Stalin to occupy the Northern half of the peninsula, which he did, and the US occupied the south half taking the Japanese surrender. The Koreans were unanimously opposed to this.

    Eventually the US put their own pro-US Korean-American dictator in charge in the South while the Soviets did the same in the North. The American choice was just as bad as Kim Il-Sung was in the North, to this day he is highly regarded as having ordered the assassination of a very popular Korean leader who would likely have won any free election North or South and could very well have united the peninsula without a single drop of blood.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Gu

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea
    From wiki; "The three powers declared that "mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea [we] are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.” For Korean nationalists who wanted immediate independence, the phrase "in due course" was cause for dismay."

    So many Koreans hate the US, many of them love the US and this attitude changes like the wind. One administration will want the US to start winding down its presence (or leave) and the next one will look for a stronger relationship.


  • #85
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,622 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Some good info there I wasn't aware of. Still I think if the chance for unification comes up it will happen, emotional ties. They will try to control the flow of people going south though and it would be a big burden on S.Korea considering the desperate state of the people in N.Korea and their education standards.


  • #86
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    tubos wrote: »
    Just stumbled across this thread, I was speaking with a Korean colleague of mine who is a bit wary of the information we are receiving regarding the recent sinking of the vessel, he believes that with the upcoming elections in the south on June 2nd, this situation is playing into the hands of the current government who have been unpopular until now.

    There is a letter in the Irish Times echoing this sentiment.
    A chara, – The situation in the Korean peninsula is considerably less clear-cut that it may appear to those privy to selected information.

    In a predominantly conservative country where the media does not criticise the government’s actions, there is also considerable distrust in the Lee administration’s accusations against North Korea. It is election time in South Korea at present and the deeply unpopular president Lee Myung-bak is fighting for political survival following a stream of unpopular manoeuvres with which he began his term of office.

    There is a belief that this catastrophe was not North Korea’s doing. Comparisons have been made with the United States’ invasion of Iraq, and Hilary Clinton’s arrival on the scene and the renewal of stronger co-operation between the United States and South Korea, have further highlighted questions of collusion.

    President Lee has been eager to confront North Korea following almost 10 years of the “Sunshine Policy” initiated by the Nobel Laureate, Kim Dae Jung. Lee’s provocative declaration to “maintain the principle of proactive deterrence” outside the Korean War Memorial sent a clear signal of the government’s intentions to change the national approach. Nationalism is serious business in South Korea and Lee has tapped the right vein during election season.

    People are unconvinced by the government’s delayed response to the sinking of the ship, and they also question how the state-of-art Cheonan equipped with torpedo detection devices and the latest sonar could be actually sunk? The nature of the international investigation, led by the Korean military and supported by the United States military, is also highly questionable.

    Koreans have called for an independent and transparent investigation of the accident but the government continues to swing its handbag in the face of an easily provoked foe. China’s reluctance to act on this matter is likely to have been triggered by these facts also. South Korea and the international community have more to lose than the country with the largest military in the world, North Korea.

    A clearer picture must be painted of this situation if an international reaction via the United Nations is to be processed.

    North Korea basket-case presents an awfully easy target for a nefarious campaign. People in the western world will reflexively believe the narrative that the North would just torpedo out-of-the-blue a perfectly innocent South Korean warship.
    They may have torpedoed it, but not unprovoked i reckon.
    I'd say there's more to this story then what we are led to believe.


  • #87
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    So BluePlanet you are suggesting that South Korea sank one of its own ships and murdered 40 odd sailors so the ruling party could win an election?


  • #88
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    deadtiger wrote: »
    So BluePlanet you are suggesting that South Korea sank one of its own ships and murdered 40 odd sailors so the ruling party could win an election?
    No, i'm suggesting the South may have provoked a response from NK via military incursions into their territory and by firing on one of their vessels.


  • #89
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    No, i'm suggesting the South may have provoked a response from NK via military incursions into their territory and by firing on one of their vessels.

    But its not the Norths territory its as you have pointed out in your previous post disputed territory?

    The South may feel that they have a legitimate reason to patrol these waters as well.


  • #90
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    deadtiger wrote: »
    The South may feel that they have a legitimate reason to patrol these waters as well.
    Oh they sure did, afterall, they were there as part of the largest "wargames" ever conducted:
    The Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise on the West Sea near the Northern Limit Line (NLL) was aimed at keeping a more watchful eye on North Korea as well as training for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in the North. It involved scores of ultra-modern US and South Korean warships equipped with the latest technology.

    I wonder how SK and USA would feel if a hostile nation decided to conduct "war games" directed at them, immediately off their coasts.
    Would that be Peace Keeping or War Mongering ?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    I wonder how SK and USA would feel if a hostile nation decided to conduct "war games" directed at them, immediately off their coasts.
    Would that be Peace Keeping or War Mongering ?

    Based on some of the history of this area I would say that they are prudent to carry out these types of training exercises myself.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nll.htm


  • #92
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    I just have to chip in here and say that there is some fascinating information and debate in this thread and as a result of it have learnt a bit more than I knew about the complexities of the Korean region. All in all it has gone excellently for my first thread here on boards, so glad I steered away from AH this was just the type of discussion I was looking for. Keep it up guys!


  • #93
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    deadtiger wrote: »
    Based on some of the history of this area I would say that they are prudent to carry out these types of training exercises myself.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nll.htm
    I wouldn't expect GlobalSecurity.org to take any other POV tbh.

    Can't see NK having anything to gain through an unprovoked attack.
    Seems more like a Gulf of Tonkin incident to me.
    Discourse over the events leading to the sinking of the Cheonan is tightly controlled by the South Korean government.

    On May 8, 2010, a former senior presidential secretary who served under Roh Moo-hyun, Park Seon-won[63], was charged with libel by South Korea's Defense Minister, Kim Tae-young, over comments he made during an April 22 interview on MBC radio asking for greater disclosure from the military and government. Park Seon-won's response to the suit: "I asked for the disclosure of information for a transparent and impartial investigation into the cause of the Cheonan sinking," adding, "the libel suit seeks to silence public suspicion over the incident."[64]
    South Korea's Minister of Public Administration and Security, Maeng Hyung-kyu, has also announced on May 20, 2010, that the government was stepping up efforts to prosecute people who spread "groundless rumors" over the internet: "Anyone who makes false reports or articles about the incident could seriously damage national security. We will not let these be the basis of any risks the nation faces." Moreover, he announced the government will step up efforts to prevent "illegal gatherings" regarding the sinking of the Cheonan.

    Jeez, one would think thats the stuff coming from NK, not SK.


  • #94
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Oh I am aware that GlobalSecurity have a bias. I used them to demonstrate that these waters have been a source of tension for years.

    Given that I am sure you would agree that with that shakey history between the two sides and the extremely erratic behaviour by the leadership of North Korea it is prudent for South Korea and their allies to maintain a fully training military force and therefore necessitates holding training exercises.


  • #95
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    There certainly is, i totally agree.
    But in disputed territory? No.


  • #96
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    It makes sense to train in areas you are more likely to fight in. You can't just say 'the sea's the sea' as the place is likely to have its own acoustic and magnetic conditions.

    Regardless, there was no requirement to fire a warshot torpedo. Disputed though the waters may be, there was a process in place to prevent such incidents from occurring, one which DPRK has just announced it will no longer be following. Might as well have announced it before as well, since they obviously didn't follow it then either.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Thought you guys might be interested in this, North Korean air defense's, work is c/o planeman over at militaryphotos.

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?128528-Bluffer-s-guide-Fortress-North-Korea


  • #98
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Catching up on the news today I see that China is still refusing to condemn NK but appears to be positioning itself as a neutral figure.(Or at least to come across as one)
    China "will not protect" whoever sank a South Korean warship in March, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has said.

    "China objects to and condemns any act that destroys the peace and stability of the Korean peninsula," Mr Wen was quoted as saying after talks in Seoul.

    Full article-BBC


  • #99
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Can't see NK having anything to gain through an unprovoked attack.
    Seems more like a Gulf of Tonkin incident to me.

    Plus they'd be far, far more likely to admit singing one of the 'enemies' ships and claim it as a great victory to their own people while subcutaneously claim they were provoked/fired at/whatever by the South.
    Jeez, one would think thats the stuff coming from NK, not SK.

    Last year they arrested people who had posted predictions of financial problems.

    I wouldn't be overly surprised if the current president were to try to stay in power after his term, Park Chun-hee style.

    You must remember its only been 15-20 years since SK was very totalitarian itself. The younger generations (25+) grew up with patriotic music playing out of loudspeakers on the street every day during which time you had a stop and put your hand on your chest.


  • #100
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It makes sense to train in areas you are more likely to fight in. You can't just say 'the sea's the sea' as the place is likely to have its own acoustic and magnetic conditions.

    Right, so if Russia and China decided to have 3/4's of their entire fleets take part in naval training off the coast of hawaii or the mainland states, where the 'pretend' enemy was the states and the wargames were designed as training to wipe them out, then that'd be perfectly fine with the yank government ? Bollox.

    Obviously NK is a evil totalitarian state run by an evil little man, but your trying to tell me its not provocative to have its 2 major enemies, one a nuclear power, partake in wargames in disputed waters off its coast not that far from its capital city ?


  • #101
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Korean Newspaper (English) with article with alleged details of the sinking. http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/21/2010052100698.html

    The official report (English) http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_10jigreport.pdf

    And the minisub apparently responsible. Used by DPRK and Iran
    Ghadir.jpg


  • Advertisement
Advertisement