Rumsfeld wants to move troops out of S. Korea!

[DarthVeda]

Yes. If nothing happens, ok. But if the North invades the south, it just goes to show you we were right all along...

But if the North does invade, and the U.S. isn't there, the South is probably screwed. That will teach those StarCraft monkies a lesson...

[Zero]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
Yes. If nothing happens, ok. But if the North invades the south, it just goes to show you we were right all along...

But if the North does invade, and the U.S. isn't there, the South is probably screwed. That will teach those StarCraft monkies a lesson...

Then I might have a chance to be a finalist in ladder games...

Who am I kidding I washed my hands off that game aeons ago...

[DarthVeda]

I'm pretty sure they ALL still play it

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Felch X
UR, you're so full of ****, your eyes are brown.

Pathetic. How much people has the US killed so far by sanctions?

[Dinner]

UR: That is an appallingly ignorant statement. The U.N.'s oil for food deal provides plenty of food and medicine to the Iraqi government but some how that food & medicine never makes it to the Iraqi people. Interestingly enough the Kurdish controlled areas are under the same sanctions but there are no shortages of food or medicine. Why?

Could it be that the Iraqi government has something to do with it? Hmmm, like maybe Saddam's not distributing all the supplies he receives? Of course examining the facts has never been one of your strong points; you much prefer to be jingoistic and continually repeat the same tired old lies which has been shot down a hundred times before.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
With their missile technology, and the stability of their leadership, there's no way in hell we can "accept" a nuclear armed DPRK.

Haven´t they been, over the past few decades, a paragon of stability? Unlike, say, the US?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Haven´t they been, over the past few decades, a paragon of stability? Unlike, say, the US?

CT: They have been if you ignore the kidnappings, the military incursions into SK & Japan, the famine, the massive flow of refugees into China, etc...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Oerdin

CT: They have been if you ignore the kidnappings, ...

I have read about a dozen or so kidnappings. However, I have also read they treated those people well, and they later did apologize.

Now compare that to the hundreds of kidnap victims held like animals at Guantanamo...

[Dinner]

Kidnape victims in Cuba?

Treated like animals?

Even the Red Cross says they are treated in accordance to the Geneva convention. I guess CT has his own "special" definitions which he uses...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Even the Red Cross says they are treated in accordance to the Geneva convention.

Quote?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Shi - the ability of the DPRK army to "win" isn't the point. Dear Leader Kim doesn't think the way the rest of us do, and any future involving peaceful reunification doesn't do much for him.

He has nothing to bargain for, except blackmail, and nothing to bargain with, except playing a game of chicken.

At one point just prior to the breakup of the USSR, the DPRK had more artillery on the DMZ than the entire combined artillery pieces of the US and USSR. They've got a lot less of that serviceable now, but it was ridiculous overkill before, and it's still overkill now.

Unlike the original Korean war, when we started finding ourselves in MiG-15 on P-51 fights and had to ramp up technologically, the DPRK air forces aren't even slightly comparable in quality to the US/RoK air forces. However, they now have ballistic missiles to make up for some of that.

From the DMZ south is the most securely defended real estate in the world, by far, with mine fields, the ability to trigger landslides to block the roads, and a network of forward firebases, but how well that will work in practice is up for grabs - most of the minefields can be sympathetically detonated by artillery saturation, and one of the main goals of DPRK sapper teams would be to take out the roadblock defenses.

In all likelihood, the forward defenses would hold, barely, and create a deathtrap for DPRK armor and mechanized forces, but the US-RoK military casualties north of Seoul would be tremendous - 50-100%. Civilian loss of life and damage to Seoul could be extreme as well, as a lot of DPRK rocket artillery can reach Seoul from their dug in positions in the DMZ.

From our side, "winning" could still be devastating. Some 1980's studies (and there's nothing to indicate that anything's changed in terms of the physical reality of geology and ordnance) by the DoD concluded that nothing short of multiple tactical nukes across the DPRK side of the DMZ could take out the most heavily dug in artillery that could threaten Seoul.

If Kim and the DPRK leadership thought the way we do, and had the same goals, then such a move would be insane. They don't think the way we do, because there really is no future for any of them, and backing down without concessions from the US would be devastating - once the Dear Leader backs down, he's got nothing left to bargain with. If he realizes he has no room to maneuver, and no chance of his regime surviving, then what? And how much are you, or anyone, willing to gamble on his thought processes?

[Q Classic]

Haven´t they been, over the past few decades, a paragon of stability? Unlike, say, the US?

a) nkorea never apologized for the kidnapping and holding of a korean filmmaker and his wife.
b) many of the kidnapped japanese died under mysterious circumstances.
c) all of the kidnapped victims were forbidden to leave nkorea and were forced to work for the party: the japanese were forced to teach nkorean agents on how to impersonate a japanese person; the korean filmmaker was forced to create a film industry.
d) there have been numerous incursions into south korea using submarines and spies. most have been caught, or sunk, still creating much acrimony.
e) there are numerous incidents of nkoreans digging tunnels under the DMZ, with skorea having to collapse such tunnels.
f) an incident in the 70s, i believe, when american/skorean troops cutting down a tree on the skorean side were fired upon by nkoreans, resulting in the death of a few allied soldiers.
g) a recent naval confrontation which resulted in the loss of a korean naval ship and the loss of a korean naval crewman.
h) they have also conducted multiple terrorist bombings involving south korea: one which killed much of the park chung hee's cabinet in burma, and another which caused the destruction of a korean air jumbo jet --and the deaths of all on board.
i) the pueblo.
j) the famine.
k) the missile launch over japan a few years back.

comrade tribune, where have you been?

[The Mad Monk]

f) was a little more personal than that. No guns were involved.

The North Koreans beat the trimmers to death with axe handles.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

comrade tribune, where have you been?

He is a crazy and hyprocrital commie who hates everything the captialism stands for, but refuses to live in a true 'Worker's Paradise' like North Korea.

[MichaeltheGreat]

DanS and Q^3:

The point about command structure is a good one - now is a lot different from the days of "Whitey" Paik, when the RoK army had limited staff capability and a very limited senior officer corps.

Keeping X Corps and 8th Army command structures in place for US forces is one thing, but at this point, even commitment of the entire US Army and USMC to the Korean theater (which would never happen, and be a logistical impossibility in any realistic war timeframe) would leave the US forces as the smaller force.

We've had RoK officers through the (US) Army's Command and General Staff College, the Army War College, etc., and we've helped set up their own training and advanced educational facilities.

Although RoK troops are directly under RoK commanders (up to their Army Chief of Staff level), and US troops under US commanders (up to 8th Army level), having the joint allied command always under a US commander is outmoded, and is patronizing. At the least, a rotating allied command should be introduced, with the allied commander approved by both countries. Eventualy, after a few rotations of command, the joint command in theater should pass over to the RoK - it's their peninsula, and the professionalism and competence, as well as tight coordination of procedures, doctrine and plans, means that they are on at least an equal footing with the US commanders that get rotated in.