N. Korea Says It Has, Plans to Test Nukes

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I still want people to specify what they mean by 'deal with South Korea' without meaning US force.

Interesting, provide no rationale's yourself, but ask for some..OK:

The Republic of Korea aligns itself with the Us becuase of North Korea. For Korea, Japan is as much a porblem as China in tersm of it's strategic position. Over the last decade Chinese relaons with the Republic of Korea have imporved markedly, and trade has ballooned, to the benefit of both sides. A single Korea would whish to maintain good relation with the US, but also build a strong relation with China, one that would not be confrontaional. and thus Us forces for defense would be unnecessary. now this new one Korea might very well decide to go nuclear itself, in order to check the Chinese and the Japanese.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
That's the point, we would be, once there was no NK. Koreans are not eager to have a permament significant US military presence.

After a major confrontation with the DPRK and us pulling their asses out of the fire, they'd probably want us around, at least for a while. According to my friends who served in the RoK, the RoK military is totally unreliable politically.

Like many countries, the RoK has cumpulsory military service. The youth of Korea, on the other hand, are very nationalistic, and many openly support the North. That doesn't change just because you've been drafted.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The youth of Korea, on the other hand, are very nationalistic, and many openly support the North. That doesn't change just because you've been drafted.

Why would they support the North. I can think of virtually nothing that would be attractive to anyone about DPRK.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Since when will the Japanese public let them get any greater than that? IIRC, their Constitution specifies a small defense force.

Keep up with the news boy..lately some of the governing parties people have come out saying Koizumi wants to change that clause in the constitution. And as long as the threat of NK nukes exist the government may very well do it.

So what does 'deal with North Korea' mean then?

at most the admin. imagines airstrikes against nuclear facilities, and I would guess leadership sites. They would never get the authorization to move in enough US forces to do any other sort of rpe-emptive attack, so they aren;t even planning that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
Why would they support the North. I can think of virtually nothing that would be attractive to anyone about DPRK.

Think about the age of the group I just mentioned.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, Japan's SDF is already one of the largest militaries in the world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
After a major confrontation with the DPRK and us pulling their asses out of the fire, they'd probably want us around, at least for a while. According to my friends who served in the RoK, the RoK military is totally unreliable politically.

S Korea's military is more powerfull than the north's. In any war, it will be the RoK forces that will do most of the figthing, dying and winning. The Koreans this time will NOT have to thank of for saving their asses form the fire.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Think about the age of the group I just mentioned.

Even so...DPRK is pretty bad. I can see a desire for unification in this age group and a desire for "give peace a chance" thinking, but to support DPRK over ROK for any age group makes no sense to me. Hopefully it is not just that I am so far removed from that age group myself!

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not so removed, and it still makes no sense.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


S Korea's military is more powerfull than the north's. In any war, it will be the RoK forces that will do most of the figthing, dying and winning. The Koreans this time will NOT have to thank of for saving their asses form the fire.

ROK's firepower is superior to DPRK for sure. The problem is that no one knows if a large first strike by DPRK could equal the odds some. Additionally, old fashioned arty is easy to move and hide and when massed can still be hugely formidable against even a highly mobile force. Not to mention the fact that we had DPRK soundly beaten in the 1950 conflict only to find ourselves facing a couple of million pissed Chinese.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
North Korea only recently got these. In November, the CIA said it thinks NK will be a nuclear power by the beginning of the new year.

That's strange. I'm quite sure that the CIA and other assorted world intelligence bodies have suspected NK of having at least two nuclear weapons since the early to mid-1990s.

But Bush did nothing. He woudl rather go after Iraq which had no nukes AT ALL and posted very little threat.
And now it is too late. Because of his inaction, and because he did not care, North Korea is in this position of power. And we can do nothing to stop it.

Talk about simplification. Yeah, I think Bush should have gone after NK over Iraq, but I'm willing to bet folks would have been screaming bloody murder had he done that. Especially once NK began raining arty down on Seoul.

Gatekeeper

[Verto]

But Bush did nothing. He woudl rather go after Iraq which had no nukes AT ALL and posted very little threat.

What would you have liked him to do? What could he have done, or do right now, against NK? It's a very difficult situation - even if NK doesn't have nuclear weapons.

[Spiffor]

N. Korea Says It Has, Plans to Test Nukes

I am dismayed.

How come you didn't use a semicolon in your thread title Sloww ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


ROK's firepower is superior to DPRK for sure. The problem is that no one knows if a large first strike by DPRK could equal the odds some. Additionally, old fashioned arty is easy to move and hide and when massed can still be hugely formidable against even a highly mobile force. Not to mention the fact that we had DPRK soundly beaten in the 1950 conflict only to find ourselves facing a couple of million pissed Chinese.

The north may have the firepower to destroy large sections of Seoul, but it does not have the firepower to do immense damage to the South korean military in one go: huge artillery bombardments would be no more effecitve today than in WW1 or 2, where well prepared positons survived such attacks. Plus, long terms (like a motnh or two in), the South has better logistics, will enjoy commmand of the air, which means ti can muster its reserves without fear of North Korean attack and turn the tide.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm not so removed, and it still makes no sense.

AFAIK, you aren't Korean.

Now, my knowldge of the political fashion of Korean youth is maybe five years old, so things may have changed.