North Korea Shells South, South Retaliates

SamHarris

OisinT wrote: »

I saw something weird coming when Obama took 32 (34?) warships and aircraft carriers with him to Asia earlier this month. I heard a lot of them stayed behind when Obama went home. Suspicious at least.

In theory US aircraft carriers can be in the region in at least 3 days, so there would be no need to have other ships in the vicinity if they had information something may kick off in coming weeks. Of course, if your saying the US navy were the ones to strike the island, Ill just say I think proof is needed for that rather than bald speculation.

FreudianSlippers

SamHarris wrote: »

In theory US aircraft carriers can be in the region in at least 3 days, so there would be no need to have other ships in the vicinity if they had information something may kick off in coming weeks. Of course, if your saying the US navy were the ones to strike the island, Ill just say I think proof is needed for that rather than bald speculation.

Nope never said that.

Capt'n Midnight

OisinT wrote: »

I saw something weird coming when Obama took 32 (34?) warships and aircraft carriers with him to Asia earlier this month. I heard a lot of them stayed behind when Obama went home. Suspicious at least.

When you spend nearly as much on your military as the rest of the world put together you can easily have a Navy that's bigger than the next 17 put together, so you can probably spare a few ships. Especially when most of those 17 navies belong to your allies.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

# World military expenditure in 2009 is estimated to have reached $1.531 trillion in current dollars;
# This represents a 6 per cent increase in real terms since 2008 and a 49 per cent increase since 2000;

SamHarris

virmilitaris wrote: »

A common misconception. Actually the Soviets halted their advance at the 38 parallel as agreed. It had nothing to do with their 'pace'. They were in fact much quicker than the Americans.



The US provides no aid to North Korea at the moment and hasn't for some time.

Actually it stops intermittently. I dont know if its still being given, it was in 2008 though.

SamHarris

OisinT wrote: »

Nope never said that.

Is it that you think they had prior knowledge of some kind of confrontation? Probably true, considering there was a report due on their nuclear activities, along with upcoming drills by the S Korean forces.

Manic Moran

OisinT wrote: »

I saw something weird coming when Obama took 32 (34?) warships and aircraft carriers with him to Asia earlier this month. I heard a lot of them stayed behind when Obama went home. Suspicious at least.

Did they all fit in his carry-on, or did he have to put some in checked baggage?

NTM

HavingCrack

SamHarris wrote: »

Actually it stops intermittently. I dont know if its still being given, it was in 2008 though.

The Americans pulled the plug in 1994, 1998 (I think) and 2008 and haven't re started since. Interestingly the US has been at fault in all negotiations between the North and themselves as regards nuclear weapons.

FreudianSlippers

SamHarris wrote: »

Is it that you think they had prior knowledge of some kind of confrontation? Probably true, considering there was a report due on their nuclear activities, along with upcoming drills by the S Korean forces.

I just think it's odd behaviour. No US President has gone to Asia with that much might.

Capt'n Midnight

virmilitaris wrote: »

A common misconception. Actually the Soviets halted their advance at the 38 parallel as agreed. It had nothing to do with their 'pace'. They were in fact much quicker than the Americans.

This is why I used the word 'might'

regarding 'as agreed' it wasn't pre-planned, it was more a case of the US asking the Soviets to halt their advance, there was no specific discussion prior to the Soviet invasion. Operation August Storm lasted from 9th to 20th of August (did this play any factor in the second atomic bomb being dropped on the 10th? ) and Stalin's reply didn't come till after the Japanese announcement of surrender. Had the Japanese not surrendered there would have been nothing to stop the Soviets taking the South too.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/pd-c-01.htm

The Chief of the Policy Section, Col. Charles H. Bonesteel, had thirty minutes in which to dictate Paragraph 1 to a secretary, for the Joint Staff Planners and the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee were impatiently awaiting the result of his work. Colonel Bonesteel thus somewhat hastily decided who would accept the Japanese surrender. His thoughts, with very slight revision, were incorporated into the final directive. [17]

Bonesteel's prime consideration was to establish a surrender line as far north as he thought the Soviets would accept. He knew that Russian troops could reach the southern tip of Korea before American troops could arrive. He knew also that the Russians were on the verge of moving into Korea, or were already there. The nearest American troops to Korea were on Okinawa, 600 miles away. His problem therefore was to compose a surrender arrangement which, while acceptable to the Russians, would at the same time prevent them from seizing all of Korea. If they refused to confine their advance to North Korea, the United States would be unable to stop them.
...
Stalin replied to President Truman on 16 August 1945. He said nothing specifically about the 38th Parallel but offered no objection to the substance of the President's message.

The US provides no aid to North Korea at the moment and hasn't for some time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7949785.stm 18 March 2009
North Korea refuses US food aid.

Under a deal reached in June last year, the US agreed to distribute 500,000 metric tonnes of food to North Korea - 400,000 through the UN World Food Programme and the rest through NGOs.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45578000/gif/_45578611_north_korea_food_aid_466gr.gif

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/doctrine/index.html Updated Friday, March 03, 2000, so nothing new here , the highlighting is mine

The North Korean regime is regularly portrayed in the Western as the lunatics in charge of the asylum. The traditional US deterrence posture rested on the ability to launch a devastating counter-strike against any country that used weapons of mass destruction against America, its allies or deployed forces. Such measures worked against the Soviet Union, whose leaders were rational and risk-averse, but some argue that they may not deter rogue states such as North Korea, whose leaders are indifferent to their people's welfare. Although North Korea's strategies and tactics can be (sometimes purposely) baffling, the country is being run by extremely intelligent and very rational people with a strongly developed sense of self-preservation. The North Korean acquisition of weapons of mass destruction stems not from an indifference to deterrence, but rather a keenly developed understanding of the uses of deterrence.
...
In addition to the political and military value of special weapons, North Korea apparently views the development and possession of special weapons as providing near and long-term economic benefits. North Korea has produced and sold large numbers of various models of missiles for significant amounts of money to customers such as Iran and Pakistan. North Korea has also found development of special weapons an effective means of extracting money from the western nations, notably the United States and Japan.

Fundamentally, however, the North Korean special weapons agenda is not simply military or economic, it is also political. North Korea has effectively manipulated American concerns about their nuclear and missile programs as a means of advancing their broader agenda. The North Koreans have been remarkably clear in their demands, and when the West has done a poor job of listening, manipulation of the status of their nuclear or missile programs have served as effective attention-getters.

mrjaygibbs

Well there's a excuse for America to invade north Korea.

Capt'n Midnight

regarding nuking them , yeah it's easy to kill cities, but how do you know if it's the real Kim or a double ?

and besides http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/doctrine/index.html

North Korea is believed to have stockpiled enough ammunition, food, and petroleum, oil, and lubricants in hardened, underground facilities to sustain combat for several months without outside aid. According to Seoul, by 1989 Pyongyang had stockpiled some 990,000 tons of ammunition--an amount sufficient for four months of combat.

Capt'n Midnight

SamHarris wrote: »

If your implying that the South is somehow illegitamite because of its ability to resist a further invasion, I disagree.

No I was not implying anything of the sort.

I seriously doubt proping up their fantastic allies the North Koreans is the goal of American aid :rolleyes: . Im confused, are you implying that starvation should be a legitamite tool to force regime change? I should think even the neo-cons would shy from that. Should this only be used with N Korea, or should US aid to other dictatorial regimes be used as a tool for example in Cuba or Zimbabwe? I can assure you the people who would suffer the brunt of such actions would be the common people. I also can see exactly how it would be spun by the regimes "See how the capitalist dogs try and make you suffer, because we resist their imperialist ambitions?" Its a story thats been written before.

Agreed that the common people would suffer. It's a thought experiment. IF it did cause regime change would it be worth it ? How many people have died there since the 1950's ?

The problem lies with a government (and there have been many in Africa) which relies on foreign aid to feed it's people instead of diverting some of it's military budget to feeding them. Yeah it's a whole can of worms.

Maybe I should just have said that the US is being blackmailed into supporting the regeim, just like they are in Zimbabwe .

Of course if it was me depending on the food aid, I'd be at the front of the queue with my bowl , praising our glorious leader and waving a miniature flag and demanding death to imperialists

jackiebaron

SamHarris wrote: »

Im fully aware of how the partition came to be, namely Soveit opportunism after the first A-bomb. Im sure there are 50 million people in S Korea that are absolutly delighted the US took the interest to hault Soviet advancement into the peninsula. If your implying that the South is somehow illegitamite because of its ability to resist a further invasion, I disagree.

I seriously doubt proping up their fantastic allies the North Koreans is the goal of American aid :rolleyes: . Im confused, are you implying that starvation should be a legitamite tool to force regime change? I should think even the neo-cons would shy from that. Should this only be used with N Korea, or should US aid to other dictatorial regimes be used as a tool for example in Cuba or Zimbabwe? I can assure you the people who would suffer the brunt of such actions would be the common people. I also can see exactly how it would be spun by the regimes "See how the capitalist dogs try and make you suffer, because we resist their imperialist ambitions?" Its a story thats been written before.

Oh Please. Another person who can't connect the dots but views historical events through the prism of singular moments that define the shape of things to come. Not only that but appears to be yet another of these people who refuse to contemplate alternatives to the official narrative because it might spark a jarring bout of cognitive dissonance. Rather be comforted by lies than hurt by the truth, eh?

With respect to the North Korean attack of South Korea in June 1950...again you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the South had been initiating most if not all of the border clashes with the North since 1948. The 1950 attack merely kickstarted the conventional phase of the war that had been going on for years. Source: US GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES!!
Truman wanted control of all of Korea. That's why he dropped nuclear bombs on Japan..to warn off the Soviets. But his gamble failed as the Soviets declared war on Japan on August 12 and entered the Korean Peninsula. FYI the Korean Peninsula was partitioned at Yalta but you'll probably spout on that it was at the Potsdam Conference which is NOT true.
I might bring your attention also to your pie-in-the-sky notion that starvation wouldn't be used as a tool of regime change...even by neocons. I can see who I'm dealing with now. Someone who just can't bring himself to believe that a government would ever deliberately adopt such ruthless and criminal tactics to further and agenda. Newsflash: 10 years of Iraq sanctions where 500,000 infants died of desease and malnutrition. To quote Madeleine Albright "it was worth it" charming! And she's not even what you would class as a neocon like those vermin Kagan, Bolton, Feith, Kristol and a bunch of other freaks who are always willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood.
If authorities are perfectly willing to deliberately kill civilians in large numbers (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Fallujah) then what makes you think they'll get all sentimental and moral about denying a population something to eat?? Get your head out of the clouds man!

mike65

Interviewer: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea?

Palin: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from a greater problem, when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies – we're bound to by treaty....

Tallaght Saint

mike65 wrote: »

Interviewer: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea?

Palin: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from a greater problem, when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies – we're bound to by treaty....

Jesus christ. And she could have been vice-president? :eek:

FreudianSlippers

Tallaght Saint wrote: »

Jesus christ. And she could have been vice-president? :eek:

The Jesus Christ is really that she may be the Republican candidate for president next election. She will certainly run in the primary!

Unpossible

mike65 wrote: »

Interviewer: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea?

Palin: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from a greater problem, when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies – we're bound to by treaty....

The six party talks will be really confusing with her at the table

virmilitaris

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Had the Japanese not surrendered there would have been nothing to stop the Soviets taking the South too.

What has the Japanese surrender got to do with the Soviets accepting the surrender of Japanese troops in China and the Northern half of the Korean peninsula ?

Was Stalin an enemy at this time ? Was he looking to piss off the US who had just shown off nuclear weapons for the first time ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7949785.stm 18 March 2009
North Korea refuses US food aid.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45578000/gif/_45578611_north_korea_food_aid_466gr.gif

Not by the US government.

jackiebaron

mike65 wrote: »

Interviewer: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea?

Palin: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from a greater problem, when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies – we're bound to by treaty....

Palin: Yeah, it's tough but moving forward I think that we have the right momentum in addressing the situation on the ground to further a ...it's gotta be about jobs and not some scary .....thing. Our efforts in the Baltic against the Bosmanians and later our dealings with the Talebanese in Gaza and the Saudi Iranians I believe put us in a strong position to help this ...thing.

Capt'n Midnight

virmilitaris wrote: »

What has the Japanese surrender got to do with the Soviets accepting the surrender of Japanese troops in China and the Northern half of the Korean peninsula ?

Was Stalin an enemy at this time ? Was he looking to piss off the US who had just shown off nuclear weapons for the first time ?

If the Japanese had not surrendered then the Red Army would have taken the whole of Korea while the US was still trying to figure out the best way to invade the Home Islands. It would have been a fait accompli.

Stalin was an enemy before the war, it's possible that had the Japanese or US backed down a bit over what was going on in China in the late 30's then in other circumstances they might even have been political allies against the Communists - Take a look at John Toland's 1970 book The Rising Sun

Not by the US government.

Do you honestly think that the US Government couldn't stop it's NGO's if it really wanted to ? A lot of US Food Aid is also a subsidy to farmers, so they don't even need to threaten NGO's directly they can just mess with the cost of the food.

virmilitaris

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the Japanese had not surrendered then the Red Army would have taken the whole of Korea while the US was still trying to figure out the best way to invade the Home Islands. It would have been a fait accompli.

The US asked the Soviets to take the surrender of Japanese troops in Manchuria and Korea. The soviets complied.

The US then asked the Soviets to stop at the 38th parallel. The Soviets stopped at the 38th parallel.

There is nothing to suggest the Soviets would have taken the entire peninsula apart from American fears they would.

Even if they hadn't stopped at the 38th parallel they wouldn't have taken the entire peninsula because by that time the US would have at least taken a substantial part of the lower peninsula.

Might I also point out that this may not have been a bad thing if the soviets had indeed taken the entire peninsula. The Soviets would have set up Kim Il-sung or someone similar. I'd actually argue that they would probably have chosen someone else but it's a pointless argument at any rate.

If the Soviets had taken control of the entire peninsula Korea might not have the problems it has today. The Korean war would never have happened and we have no idea how Korean politics North and South would look today if there had never been a war. A large part of the reason behind the political state of the DPRK today is due to the war and fear of invasion from the South or from the US.

To suggest if the Soviets had taken the entire peninsula that all of Korea would be a DPRK type state is pure speculation considering the many factors involved. I would actually wager that it would have followed suit with China and opened it's markets.

Stalin was an enemy before the war, it's possible that had the Japanese or US backed down a bit over what was going on in China in the late 30's then in other circumstances they might even have been political allies against the Communists - Take a look at John Toland's 1970 book The Rising Sun

I accept that but I don't see how it's relevant here.

Do you honestly think that the US Government couldn't stop it's NGO's if it really wanted to ?

Of course they could. But that's not what we are arguing. There's an enormous difference between the US government actively supplying aid and the US government turning a blind eye to NGO's who do.

HornyDevil

Thought the thread might enjoy the benefit of this:
Korea1.jpg

Korea2.jpg

Korea txt.jpg