North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Kim Il Jung, for better or for worse, was the leader of the main anti-Japanese resistence. Following the collapse of the Japanese Empire, the various resistecne groups in Korea set up revolutionary councils across the country. The Soviets and Amerians entered the country, after this process had begun and a sort of national government had been established.

The DPRK, for all its horror and problems, is the successor state to that proto-state that the Korean people themselves had established. Obviously Stalin's iron grip shaped the state the DPRK became, but I have little reason to believe that had Korea been left to itself that they would have been much different from any of the other Asian Communist countries.

When the US came in, they abolished the councils that had been set up by the Korea people and created a state out of the most reactionary people in Korea they could find: fascists, Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese, Japanese soldiers, etc. This government only established itself by murderering off the members of the previous government and their supporters. Massacres were frequent.

This is one of the reasons why the South collapsed so quickly when the North finally decided to put an end to it, the Southern government simply had little indigenous support. That lack of support is still around today, seen in the massive protests and strikes the RoK faced in the late 80s and early 90s (and one still sees today).

The US military took possession of South Korea on September 9, 1945. They along with the Soviet commander, received the surrender of the Japanese commander on that day. The Japanese army had been still in charge of most of the Korean peninsula up to that time. The Soviet military had only occupied one corner of the country northeast of Pyongyang. The US set up its own military government which lasted until 1948, at which time they handed the country over to the South Koreans. I don't see that there was any time between the fall of the Japanese and the arrival of the Americans for Kim Sung Il to have established a nationwide government. Furthermore the South Korean government didn't even come into existance until 3 years after the Americans took control, so the Communist cadres imposed by Kim would have been long gone by then.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

Originally posted by Ned
OK, lets impose an oil embargo on Austria.

You can´t; we are better friends with the producer nations than you are; you have to finish conquering the world first.

[Zero]

Originally posted by connorkimbro
Seeker: As far as military equipment goes, i really have no idea what we have here, compared with what their is. However, if a war were to break out, you can bet that along with the influx of troops, would come the influx of battle ready equipment.

If influx of battle ready equipment will come qucikly if war breaks out, what the point of having old equipment right on the spot? so that the n.ks can destroy them?

People who justify that reinforcement can come later do not do a good job of defending why US troops should be there. (exception of one post, which was all about politics anyway)

And, well, we are. We'd whip their ass in a war. But is war really what we want? It's not what I want. I don't think it's the ultimate answer in this case.

War is not starcraft. Just because you have more units, more equipment and more production power does not guaranteee victory. I'll put my bet on US if they fight, but I don't see how you are so certain about it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have been injured and not noticed it before

I didn't even notice it, but than I glanced down at my hand and my hand was incased in blood

Jon Miller

Did you also find a kebab in your pocket that you had absoloutely no recollection of buying?

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: North Or South Korea: Which is Worse?

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


You can´t; we are better friends with the producer nations than you are; you have to finish conquering the world first.

Alright then, we tell Saddam that if he takes care of Austria, he gets a get-out-of-jail-free card.

[Az]

Saddam is a much bigger "troll" than Comrade Tribune. It's not worth the effort. However, you could **** up Austria, and then go for Saddam.

[DanS]

Here's a good, short summary of NK's military assets.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-north-korea0109jan08,0,7181587.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[Ned]

Che and Sava, The U.N., in 1948, called for vote to select a national government for the whole of the Korean peninsula. The North Koreans rejected the idea of a vote and did not participate while the South Koreans did participate. A vote was then held under United Nations auspices and the Republic of Korea was formed. Thereafter the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was formed. However since the South Korean government was created under the authority of United Nations, it, in truth, is the legitimate government of the entire Korean peninsula.

In 1950, the U.S. pulled its troops out of South Korea. Tthe North Koreans then attacked the ROK. The United States of America then led a coalition of more than a dozen countries under United Nations authority to rescue Korea from Communist aggression. We were largely successful until, that is, China intervened. In 1953, after the election of Dwight Eisenhower, the Communists finally agreed to a cease-fire. By that time, the United States had lost approximately 37,000 killed in action. The Koreans, both North and South, lost 4 million killed, including civilians.

It is interesting to note that Truman authorized the use of nuclear weapons in 1951 if the Chinese and Soviets introduced massive new forces into the conflict. Apparently the Russians had moved massive air forces to the border including 200 Russian bombers that could strike not only Korea, but Japan.

"On April 5, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered immediate atomic retaliation against Soviet and Chinese bases in Manchuria if large numbers of new troops entered the war. Also on April 5, Gordon Dean, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), arranged for the transfer of nine nuclear capsules held by the AEC in the United States to the Air Force bomb group that would carry the weapons. Truman approved the transfer as well as orders outlining their use the next day."
From Encarta online.

[David Floyd]

As far as the US pulling out of south korea, i say BAD idea, for a couple of reasons.

1) perhaps the most important point is, if there were no US presence in south korea, north korea would attack. almost immediatly. and they would win.

First of all, so what if North Korea attacks. Why in the hell should US soldiers, who signed up to defend the United States, be forced to die to defend a bunch of people 6000 miles away? And why the hell should I be forced to pay for such a war, when I would never support it?

Secondly, I seriously doubt that the North would win. They have half the population and a much smaller economy. Sure, they have a bigger standing army, but the South has much better equipment and a superior air force. Not only that, but the South can mobilize double the number of troops that the North can, assuming a long war.

And I'm assuming a long war, because there's no way that the North Koreans can slog through Korea in a matter of weeks - there are just too many South Korean troops in the way, and the terrain is not the best. Further, South Korea would have air superiority, while the North would be operating from ever-lengthening supply lines.

I really just don't see how North Korea could win, even absent US intervention.

But let's get one thing straight. I don't care who wins. What I do care about is not being forced to pay for a war that we should never fight in the first place.

So, in conclusion, I'll repeat what the protesters say: US OUT OF SOUTH KOREA NOW!

[David Floyd]

Seeker,

Connor: Joong-Ang did a piece on the US forces here. I was suprised by some of the things they said.

-Only about 100 M1 type tanks.
-not very much artillery really.
-Some surprisingly old equipment still in use

That's true. The main component of the US ground forces - the 2nd Infantry Division - is largely unmechanized, IIRC, with the reasoning being the mechanized forces are of little use in the South Korean terrain.

However, if a war were to break out, you can bet that along with the influx of troops, would come the influx of battle ready equipment.

Well, that's not necessarily true. If war broke out while we were building up in Iraq, we could certainly airlift a lot of troops over (although most of our most battle-ready troops would already be committed to the Middle East), but we would not have the sealift readily available to send the equipment over. In reality, we could airlift over a bunch of light infantry and airborne troops, with their sidearms and some infantry weapons - but very little heavy artillery, tanks, etc., would be able to be sent until we stopped deploying to the Middle East.

[GePap]

A few things:

1. Boycotting Korean Goods is silly and dangerous: a) it will only increase anti-Americanism, b) endanger thousands of US workers who work for Korean owned companies c) weaken the overall asian economy, and eventually ours by creating a chain. As for an end to foreign investment: the US might be the biggest source, but it is not the only source of outside cash: hell, maybe the S.Koreans could convince many of the foreigners who pour in tens of billions of foreign investment INTO the US to relocate their dollars.

2. N.Korea could not defeat South Korea, even without the US. a) the North's army is bigger, but with inferior equipment to the South, and equal if not lower training. The North's 7 million reserves comes out of a demoralized and hungry populace: the south has conscription of all men, so with a population of 40 million, they certainly have a large pool of men themselves. THe S.koreans have better aircraft and would control the sea. China and Russia both have increasingly good relations with S.Korea and would not stand in the way of denouncing the North or cutting of vital aid. The north can make one vast, sweepoing assault and perhaps destroy Seoul; but that's about it, before they ran out of steam. This isn't 1950, when the north was the more populous half with the higher per capita income. This is 2003 when S.korea is the world's 12th largest economy, with a bigger population.

3. even without a tripwire force, the US would have to come defend S.Korea, if at the least, to make sure N.korea does not become a bigger threat to Jap0an, thus making Japan rearm. We fought in Korea in 1950 for Japan: we would end up doing the same anyway.

4. The north won't invade the South if US forces leave. They gain nothing from invading: they may cause lots of damage, but in the end, it would mean the end of their regime.

5. The fact that we (the US) thinks that the South can't survive without us is a big reason why S.Korean now dislike us. S.Korea is now a player on the world stage, and can't be handled like some 'kid' state playing with the big boys. It is pride that drives much dislike of the US, as they see us an being overbearing and not giving them their dues (like thinking only 37,000 US troops stand in the way of a N.Korean horde when 600,000 S.Koreans man the whole front)

[Arrian]

What GePap said.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


4. The north won't invade the South if US forces leave. They gain nothing from invading: they may cause lots of damage, but in the end, it would mean the end of their regime.

GePap, I don't get why you believe that the North Korean regime would necessarily be destroyed if it invaded South Korea. If the South Koreans were to get the upper hand and then cross into the North as it did in 1950, it might run again into an intervening Chinese army, just as it did in 1950. History would be repeating itself.

The South Koreans may face the same problem ad did the South Vietnamese. They may not be able to attack the North and may have to suffer a long war of attrition which they could eventually loose, especially if a Democrat-controlled Congress is elected and cuts South Korea off just as it once cut South Vietnam off.

But other than this, we seem to be on the same page on this issue. South Korea can defend itself. They don't need us. Furthermore, increasingly they do not want to help them and want our troops to leave.

We should oblige them.

[GePap]

The South Koreans may face the same problem ad did the South Vietnamese. They may not be able to attack the North and may have to suffer a long war of attrition which they could eventually loose, especially if a Democrat-controlled Congress is elected and cuts South Korea off just as it once cut South Vietnam off.

Ned: there are many crucial problems with such an annalogy:

1. South Korea makes it own weapons, it has the money, by itself, without ANY US assistance, to finance its own war. The South has a significantly larger population, which has not been on the verge of starvation for years. The north is an economic ruin. It can't wage any osrt of war of attrition, for it will always , in itsw current condition, loose such a contest.

2. The UN would undoubtedly back a war against N.Korea. No great veto power would stand in the way. China has a very profitable and growing relation with S.Korea, which even today, probably rates far higher in their list of priorities than any ties to the NOrth (China is S.Korea's biggest trade partner and Chinese leaders are hungry for S.Korean investment) Russia also has far more to gain from a good relation with the south than it does any relation with the north.

N.Korean is alone, a bokren entity. All it has to play is the card of a threat, but once that card its played, they have nothing. Now, the card works since none wants them to start problems as none of their neighbors are willing to pay for the costs, but that does not mitigate the reality that once any war starts, they are invariably goin to lose. In 1950 ther was a chance. We should remember that the only reason the UN authorized forces to help the couth was because the USSR was boycotting meetings at that very point. This isn't 1950, and until we come to that seemingly simple realization, we won't get very far.

[DanS]

"S.Korea is now a player on the world stage"

I don't want to put SK down, because I like to see them do well, but they are not a big player on the world stage. Just as is the case with the U.S., it is dangerous to think that you are more powerful than you actually are, because you will sign checks that your ass can't cash.

The US provides a security umbrella for free (UR: no, they don't pay for it). They get a token force of troops as a chit for further involvement should the shooting start, a nuclear deterrent, and eventually missile defense.

You could argue that we could do a Taiwan game and just withdraw. I am somewhat sympathetic to this view. However, we know that NK can actually hit SK and fast. So we don't want any ambiguity of intentions here like there is in Taiwan.

Lastly, you could argue that it's their defense, they best tend to it, not us. Again, I am somewhat sympathetic to this view, but realize that they would have to increase their defense budget substantially from its current low amount (3% of economy), siphoning off a great deal of the recent SK economic growth. The US expenditures and guarantees are extremely inexpensive in comparison.

The end game for me is the fall of the NK regime and a peaceful reunification under SK's able management, just like happened in Germany. We wouldn't have WOMD proliferation issues, the NK populace would be fed, the labor camps would be destroyed, and 30% of the NK's economy could then go to plowshares instead of swords. This is the real solution.

It looks to me like this is going to be put off to another day, however.