North Korea Discussion Thread.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth Mischievous, Dec 27, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jedi_Xen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2001
    star 4
    - The South have a strong army, better equiped and better trained, it won't be a cake-walk.

    The same advantages the South had at the beginning of the Korean War 50+ years ago. How fast did the North over run the South again?

    American withdrawal from the South DOESN'T mean that they can't and won't come to the aid of the South should it be invaded. American missiles can hit any target in the world, and their stealth fighters and bombers can be launched from aircraft carriers within months and from bases in Okinawa and around the world immediately. In fact, if there are no US troops on the ground, it's more advantageous for the Americans to use tactical nuclear weapons.

    First off Stealth fighters dont launch off of Aircraft carriers, but that point is small fries. Secondly do you have any idea the logistics what you are proposing takes? Its an expensive procedure, and if the north does invade again it could take Lord knows how long for the US to get its troops into South Korea as formidable fighters instead of leading them to the slaughter. You don't just dump your men on a beach and tell them to fight, hell even Normandy proved this, fortunatley luck was on the side of the allies, had Germany had a few tanks waiting there, even with allies air superiority it would have been devestating.

    China is concentrating on domestic affairs, and wants peace in the region. Any involvement will likely come down ON the North Koreans.

    China said not too long ago and won their backing over the nuclear crisis. China-North Korea So there goes that theory.

    North Korea is too poor to sustain its forces for very long in the field (compared to the South especially), and a war against the South, the United States, possibly Britain and China, will be impossible for them to win in a shorter enough time.

    True enough, except for the fact that China wont sit idle in the war and watch North Korea unite with the South under those circumstances.

    North Korea's supposed military advantage, numerical superiority and human wave attacks, can no longer work on the battlefield with automatic weapons, napalm and air-to-surface ordinance (MOAB and cluster bombs) that are available to South Korean and American forces.

    You just removed the American forces. A huge hit for the South Koreans forces, they do work closley together and Im sure a sudden removal of the US troops would be a great moral blow to the South.

    An invasion of the South would have the objective of uniting Korea. The practical considerations would be monumental, not only would most of the economic and political infrastructure of the South be destroyed in the war but the North would have to instigate police state control over the citizens in the South, alienating a group of people that are their fellow countrymen - think Reconstruction magnified.

    And this has stopped previous wars how?

    Why would a country launch itself into a war it knows it cannot win? That is suicide, and once again, how can you say that a regime that tortures its own people to maintain power over them, will knowingly commit suicide?

    Why did Hitler decide to attack the USSR before making peace with Britain? Why did Japan attack the US before it had defeated China? Why did Saddam Hussein not with draw from Kuwait in 1990 when every major military force from the Soviets to the American's were clearly against him occupying it? Why did the southern states attack Fort Sumpter when they knew they couldnt defeat the Union in a long war without European aid? People have done dumb things in the past, and will do dumb things in the future leaving future generations to scratch their heads and ask why.


    EDIT: Spelling
  2. Dean Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 2002
    star 1
    I'd love to hear this third one.

    WWI, WWII, the Cold War.

    You've missed the point I was making, and twisted it to paint me as the stereotypical anti-American European.

    Just reading what you posted, redxavier. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your comment about the "general ignorance" of the American people as being stereotypically anti-American. Having lived in Europe for four years, I honestly have never heard such things from Europeans before. ;)

    Luck has nothing to do with it. The US encompasses a vast continent with lots of natural resources.

    So does Russia. So does Canada. Many European countries during colonial times also had access to vast resources. What happened?

    WTF? I can't think of anything so wrong.

    If it suits your patriotism to think that the UK won the Falklands War with 100% UK resources, fine. A lot of Russians think the same thing about WWII.

    It's not WHAT the US does. It's HOW the US goes about doing it.

    Of course, but if Europe wants more influence over US foreign policy decisions I suggest they follow PM Blair's strategy, not Chirac and Schroeder's.

    My country, Britain, does intervene. Europe doesn't because it doesn't care.

    France is sending troops to Africa all the time to prop up their client states. They care all right, primarily about their own economic interests.

    Lol, and you accuse me of anti-American drivel? I suggest you do some reading on post-colonial conflicts and compare them to pre-colonial times, you'll notice that for the most part, colonialism actually kept the peace.

    Wow, you surprised me, redxavier! From your previous posts I never would have thought you a colonialist. Then I guess you shouldn't mind the US occupying Iraq for the next 50 years or so. Just to extract resources and keep the peace, don't you know. [face_laugh]

    Back to the thread: NK might eventually invade, but with South Korea's population and GDP they should easily be able to handle the situation. This isn't 1950. All I'm concerned about is 37,000 USFK troops currently deployed in a hopeless tactical position, protecting an obviously ungrateful country.
  3. redxavier Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2003
    star 4
    "The same advantages the South had at the beginning of the Korean War 50+ years ago."

    hmmm... I don't think you appreciate the advances made by South Korea's armed forces in the last 50 years.

    "China said not too long ago and won their backing over the nuclear crisis."

    It still doesn't preclude the fact that China doesn't want a war in Korea. Besides, the support isn't for an invasion of South Korea, but that they allow North Korea the right to proliferate nuclear arms and that the US shouldn't 'push them around'.

    "A huge hit for the South Koreans forces, they do work closley together and Im sure a sudden removal of the US troops would be a great moral blow to the South."

    I assume you mean morale here. Actually, South Korea doesn't care anymore, and their public and armed forces consider the continued presence of US forces a hindrance to their future safety. Time to allow them to stand on their own feet, less they never acquire self-confidence. How long are US troops going to be stationed in their country? For another 50 years?

    "Why did the southern states attack Fort Sumpter when they knew they couldnt defeat the Union in a long war without European aid?"'

    They didn't know.

    "WWI, WWII, the Cold War."

    The Cold War was an example of when the US came to the rescue of Europe? That's just gross.

    "If it suits your patriotism to think that the UK won the Falklands War with 100% UK resources, fine. A lot of Russians think the same thing about WWII."

    Oh, so it's my patriotism that makes me say that... please. I'm not like you. I particularly like your snide remark about Russian contribution to WW2, something that's never been vocalised anywhere, but can be applied much more appropiately to Americans, who think of it as something of a sore spot when they find out that they didn't actually win ww2 on their own.

    " but if Europe wants more influence over US foreign policy decisions I suggest they follow PM Blair's strategy"

    Blair has limited influence. America doesn't want allies, it wants vassals. Plain and simple. And it's an insult to Europeans to say that they aren't aware of this. Better to make a stand now than to be a slave to American whims.

    It's been ok since the Cold War because Americans are generally a nice group who are just trying to do the right thing. But under Bush, the boat looks likely to rock and these Europeans aren't liking it.
  4. Dean Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 2002
    star 1
    The Cold War was an example of when the US came to the rescue of Europe? That's just gross.

    Sorry, I still believe that hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars over forty years, plus the US nuclear umbrella over Western Europe, was important in deterring the USSR.

    Oh, so it's my patriotism that makes me say that... please.

    Your earlier comment about any suggestion of US help contributing to the UK victory during the Falklands War was "WTF? I can't think of anything so wrong." If not patriotism, what would you call this? Reasoned analysis? [face_laugh]

    I'm not like you.

    Oh. What am I, redxavier? I can't wait to hear! :D

    I particularly like your snide remark about Russian contribution to WW2, something that's never been vocalised anywhere, but can be applied much more appropiately to Americans, who think of it as something of a sore spot when they find out that they didn't actually win ww2 on their own.

    Uhhh, I meant the US and UK material assistance to the USSR during WWII, which was forgotten in most Soviet texts, just as you seem to ignore US assistance to the UK during the Falklands War. Sorry if you misinterpreted my post. But thanks for making another "ignorant American" comment, I'll archive it. ;)

    Blair has limited influence.

    Perhaps, but it's more than France and Germany or any other country has at the moment.

    America doesn't want allies, it wants vassals. Plain and simple. And it's an insult to Europeans to say that they aren't aware of this. Better to make a stand now than to be a slave to American whims.

    In that case I suggest you advocate as I do the dissolution of NATO and removal of most or all US troops from Europe. This will force the EU to finally shoulder their rightful responsibilities in the Balkans and elsewhere. Only then will Europe have their emancipation from US tyranny.

    But under Bush, the boat looks likely to rock and these Europeans aren't liking it.

    The problem of European irrelevance in security matters did not start with Bush II and will not end with him leaving office. As Thierry de Montbrial in Le Monde said a few days ago: "Unfortunately, a multipolar world cannot just be decreed"

    Back to the thread:

    True enough, except for the fact that China wont sit idle in the war and watch North Korea unite with the South under those circumstances.

    I agree, Jedi_Xen. A nuclear, unified Korea (under whichever side wins the war), and likely followed by a nuclear Japan, is undoubtedly a nightmare scenario for the Chinese. The problem is that the Chinese are perfectly willing to let the US take all the risks right now because they don't think we'll ever abandon our alliance with SK, whatever SK's provocations.
  5. redxavier Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2003
    star 4
    "Sorry, I still believe that hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars over forty years, plus the US nuclear umbrella over Western Europe, was important in deterring the USSR."

    I'm sorry too.

    "Only then will Europe have their emancipation from US tyranny."

    Woah, hold it there! Who said anything about US tyranny? Let's not take things to such extremes. It's noth healthy for anyone.

    Let's keep an eye on perspectives.

  6. Wolf Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 29, 2002
    star 4
    The cold war actually turned out pretty well for the majority of western Europe.

    France west germany, england and alot of other countries were able to rebuild their economy's, industries and even rearm in probably 1/10th the time it would have taken them had the US not supplied the money via the Marshall Plan.

    That i concider a great US help to Europe and Xavier i would really like to hear your argument how this was not a good example of the US helping Europe.
  7. redxavier Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2003
    star 4
    "The cold war actually turned out pretty well for the majority of western Europe."

    Emphasis on the western.

    "That i concider a great US help to Europe and Xavier i would really like to hear your argument how this was not a good example of the US helping Europe."

    It wasn't exactly an act of benevolence, but yes, it was a great deal of help.

    I was contesting Dean's attitude that the US had come to Europe's rescue for a third time, to separate the Marshall Plan from WW2 would be a gross error.

    Not to sound ungrateful or anything. The US did help Britain after ww2. I wouldn't call it saving us from the 'menace' of the Soviet Union.
  8. TheScarletBanner Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 19, 2002
    star 4
    Just a note on the Falklands. America never supplied any kind of material help in defeating the Argentineans. There was some degree of intelligence, but most of it came from the British Mi6, and, surprisingly enough, Chile.

    President Reagan didn't fully support British action in the Falklands, precisely because it was seen by many as Britain trying to keep its imperial territories. This is part of the American mindset, I believe, which makes it almost impossible for them to ever build an Empire.

    The real reason that Britain defended the Falklands was because the majority of the people on the Falklands want to remain British, and they were under direct threat from a foreign power. The most important point, though, was the lack of full American support. It sort of proves the case that America is not an empire.

    - Scarlet.
  9. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    Scarlet

    No is pretending that there is an American Empire in the traditional sense of an empire. What is referred to as the American Empire is America's worldwide economic, political and military influence or hegemony as some see it. If you want to argue there is no problem with that then fine but don't defend America against accusations that no one is making.

    And yes US support for Britain during the Falklands was far below what you would expect from your partner in a special relationship. Here are a few exerts from the autobiography of Sir John Nott, Defense Secretary at the time

    'The United States, did not wish to choose between Britain, their principal Nato ally in Europe, and their interests in Latin America. Apart from Weinberger and the Pentagon, the Americans were very, very far from being on our side.?

    In the closing stages, when we had already lost many ships and men and were already safely back on the Falkland Islands, the Americans leant heavily on us, backed up by telephone calls from Reagan to Thatcher, to find some way of saving Galtieri?s face ...only Mitterrand and the French remained staunch allies to the end.?

    ?In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies.? They lent the RAF ?a Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft? (in service with the Argentinians) ?so that our Harrier pilots could train against them.

    ?...The French supplied us with detailed technical information on the Exocet, showing us how to tamper with the missiles?. British agents worldwide then identified Exocets for sale in the world arms market and, using French information, rendered them inoperable. At this time the Israelis and the (white) South Africans were also making ?strenuous efforts ...to help Argentina?.


    For the record Nott was a stuanch supporter of Nato and firmly eurosceptic.
  10. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    NK: All your base are belong to us
    WITH its usual display of bellicose behaviour, North Korea ended three days of talks about its nuclear programme on Friday with the message: we already have a nuclear bomb. American officials insisted that, if true, this would merely confirm their suspicions, though it is disturbing nonetheless. A further worry is North Korea?s threat at the talks, according to the Americans, that it might test one of its weapons, which would greatly escalate the crisis on the Korean peninsula.

    The talks, led by America?s assistant secretary of state, James Kelly, and his North Korean counterpart, Li Gun, were hosted by China and held in Beijing. That they took place at all is a ?good start?, said the Chinese. The only agreement reached was that diplomatic channels would be kept open. North Korea?s claims about its bomb making and a later statement by Colin Powell, America?s secretary of state, that Washington was not taking ?any options off the table??leaving open the prospect of military action?leaves the stand-off at a worrying level.

    North Korea is acutely aware that the war in Iraq demonstrates how America is prepared to take unilateral action against any country that it considers to threaten its national interest. President George Bush has already labelled the country?s dictator, Kim Jong Il, as the leader of a rogue regime?just like Saddam Hussein. Yet the role of the Chinese, in putting pressure on its old ally to come to the negotiating table, provides a ray of hope for diplomacy.

    The alternative is scary. North Korea has artillery which could devastate Seoul, the capital of South Korea, in the event of a war. The regime also has ballistic missiles capable of reaching Japan, but it is not clear if these could carry nuclear warheads. ?If it?s true that the North has nuclear weapons, it violates the joint North-South declaration on de-nuclearisation and would be a major disturbance to peace on the Korean peninsula and to north-east Asia,? said Yoon Young-kwan, South Korea?s foreign minister, on Friday

    ...Previous efforts to get talks started have been stymied by North Korea?s insistence that it would only speak one-to-one with America. Mr Bush has insisted that the talks must also include China, Russia, Japan and South Korea on the grounds that any deal struck would only have a fair chance of sticking if the North?s neighbours were involved. America has been especially keen on China?s involvement, to ensure that North Korea?s only significant ally backed, rather than undermined, any progress.

    North Korea often makes hostile noises, and has said that it believes the lessons from Iraq are that it must resist any attempts to re-admit the United Nations nuclear inspectors whom it expelled in December; and that only a ?tremendous military deterrent force, powerful enough to decisively beat back an attack supported by ultra-modern weapons, can avert a war and protect the security of the country.? However, earlier this month, the country?s foreign ministry signalled a change of heart, issuing a carefully worded statement that North Korea would ?not stick to any dialogue format? for discussions, so long as America made a ?bold switch in its Korean policy for the settlement of the nuclear issue?. North Korea has accused America of not taking up a ?bold proposal? it made at the Beijing talks.

    China?s role will be crucial in achieving a diplomatic outcome. The impoverished North Koreans rely heavily on Beijing for aid, including food. There have been reports that when North Korea test-fired a missile into the sea towards Japan last month, China briefly shut off its supply of oil to the country. If North Korea does carry out a nuclear test, then it could find itself isolated even by those countries that are trying to help it.



    Were these talks the best (last) chance for peace?
    ...Nort
  11. Dean Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 2002
    star 1
    Woah, hold it there! Who said anything about US tyranny?

    With your talk about vassals and slavery, redxavier, I thought the word "tyranny" was appropriate. Forgive me if I offended you.

    Just a note on the Falklands. America never supplied any kind of material help in defeating the Argentineans.

    redxavier, TheScarletBanner, DarthKarde, this patriotic US guy is tired of arguing this point with you patriotic UK lads. I found the following in exactly two minutes at the UK site www.naval-history.net:

    "The Task Force cannot be completely self-contained and a lot of men and supplies have to be ferried out to the South Atlantic by a constant stream of RAF Hercules and VC.10's, chartered freighters and mainly undisclosed American aircraft bringing in such stores as the latest Sidewinder AAM's. These are either delivered to the ships as they call in or pass by, or in urgent cases, air-dropped to them on the way to the Falklands or South Georgia."

    Case closed? Or not?

    "The United States, did not wish to choose between Britain, their principal Nato ally in Europe, and their interests in Latin America. Apart from Weinberger and the Pentagon, the Americans were very, very far from being on our side."

    The US didn't want to appear to be helping the UK retain a colonial possession claimed by a Latin American country so the strategy was probably to stay almost neutral diplomatically and provide military help covertly. To that end, Sir John's qualification, "Apart from Weinberger and the Pentagon..." is very revealing. Was the Pentagon acting on its own supplying the UK fleet on Ascension Island and the South Atlantic? I think not.
  12. redxavier Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2003
    star 4
    "Forgive me if I offended you"

    Lol

    The big bad Dean.

    "mainly undisclosed American aircraft bringing in such stores as the latest Sidewinder AAM's"

    Oh my god! The US won the Falklands War!!!


    Frankly, I find your audacity insulting. You cite the supplying of sidewinders as evidence that without US help, Britain wouldn't have won the Falklands? Do you realise how arrogant that sounds?
  13. Dean Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 2002
    star 1
    Frankly, I find your audacity insulting. You cite the supplying of sidewinders as evidence that without US help, Britain wouldn't have won the Falklands? Do you realise how arrogant that sounds?

    Frankly, redxavier, I find your ad Hominem response quite revealing and at this point of the discussion not entirely unexpected. The US supplies involved much more than the crucial sidewinders, as the quote itself indicated ("such stores as the latest Sidewinder AAM's...") and as you could discover for yourself by doing some research. But why should I debate this any longer? Instead, I think I'll let the war's participants do my work for me with quotes found in one UK newspaper:

    "Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lady Thatcher's key foreign affairs adviser, said that Britain would have lost the war without such assistance"[the sidewinders]. "Crucial Falklands Role Played by US Missiles." The Guardian, 6 September 2002

    Oh dear, redxavier, that Lord Powell is being so arrogant. [face_laugh]

    "Britain might have lost the Falklands war if Argentine forces had held on for another week, the commander of the task force said yesterday on the 20th anniversary of the invasion. Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward said the conflict was "a lot closer run than many would care to believe." "Falklands Victory 'a close run thing'." The Guardian, 3 April 2002.

    I guess the "many" would include you, redxavier. ;)

    BTW, Unlike Lord Powell I never said anything as definitive as the UK would have lost the war without US material help. I only said they had a "good chance" of losing, much as the USSR had in WWII without US and UK material help in my opinion. I'm sorry if this easily obtainable information insults you or offends your sense of patriotism, redxavier, but if you have any further complaints I suggest you take them up with The Guardian, Lord Powell and Sir John. :D
  14. redxavier Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2003
    star 4
    I stand corrected then. Although in all fairness, the Guardian is a liberal left wing paper, who don't exactly hide their distaste for Margaret Thatcher.

    Btw, you said "Britain had a good chance of losing that war if not for US help", and reading that within the context of the rest of that post. It seemed like I had offended YOUR sense of patriotism and that this was some kind of one-upmanship, a payback for my 'Anti-American' comments.

    But no matter now. (if you'd like to respond, let's continue with PMs)


    Well, North Korea is now a member of the Nuclear Club. They announced at the meeting with the US and China that they already had a bomb, with the potential to create several more.

    Needless to say, its neighbours aren't happy about it. Of course, the US is adamant about not being intimidated by the threat. It's certainly a difficult predicament, on the one hand one has to approach North Korea with a degree of respect so as not to antagonise them, whilst on the other hand one can't just give these psychos everything. The answer probably lies in the middle somewhere.

    But, whatever happens, the ball is in the Bush administration's court:

    "It's up to you whether we do a physical demonstration or transfer them." (Mr Ri to Kelly, Guardian)

    Scary stuff...
  15. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Dealing with the danger from a nuclear North Korea
    IT IS hard to exaggerate the danger in North Korea's finger-on-trigger taunts to America and the world that it already has a few nuclear bombs, is busily producing the stuff to build more, and will make use of them in whatever ways it chooses. Such nuclear swagger from one of the world's reckless squad jeopardises peace on the Korean peninsula. It also endangers stability in East Asia, where threats hurled at the neighbours risk setting off an arms race and a chain reaction that could tempt several countries, including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, to turn nuclear at speed. And it aims another damaging strike (after Iraq's teasing of weapons inspectors and recent revelations about Iran's uranium enrichment) at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), whose members opened a treaty review this week in an anxious huddle.

    Yet it is no big surprise that North Korea should have in effect declared itself the world's ninth nuclear power. America's CIA has long guessed that before an earlier crisis-defusing deal back in 1994, under which the regime agreed to freeze and eventually dismantle plutonium production in return for generous energy assistance, North Korea had probably already got its hands on enough material for perhaps one or two bombs. That crisis had its spine-prickling moments, but this one could be far more dangerous. For, if Kim Jong Il's nuclear claims are true, he may soon have five or six more, with options on others. And more weapons mean enough spares to be able, say, to test one to intimidate the neighbours; or to auction one off to the highest bidder (an Iran, a Libya, or perhaps even an Osama bin Laden). How this crisis unfolds therefore depends on what Mr Kim really does intend to do with his bombs.

    North Korea says it presented America with a ?new bold proposal? for eventually scrapping them at tripartite talks last week that also involved China. When this latest crisis started in October, after America had surprised North Korea with the evidence that it was secretly and illegally enriching uranium, and North Korea surprised everyone by owning up to it, President George Bush was preparing to offer his own ?bold initiative?. The idea, he says, would be to transform America's relations with the place if it put a comprehensive end to the security threat it poses?with its nuclear weapons, its far-flying missiles and its guns pointed at South Korea.

    Might these two boldnesses yet be turned into the peaceful diplomatic solution that all sides say they want? North Korea certainly has need of the aid, trade and investment that South Korea, Japan, America and others have all at various times held out to it as an inducement to scrap its nuclear ambitions. But Mr Kim has now thrown up new obstacles, and any new deal will be that much harder to win.

    The biggest difficulty is Mr Kim's serial promise-breaking. His first shot at plutonium-making back in the early 1990s had already broken both the NPT and a North-South agreement to keep the peninsula nuclear-free. His recently discovered uranium enriching, and his claimed resumption of plutonium reprocessing, have in effect consigned these agreements and his 1994 one with America to the shredder. How could anyone be sure he would honour a new one?

    Only by including intrusive checks to ensure the ?complete, verifiable and irreversible? end to his weapons dabbling, as America has demanded. In 1994 China, Japan and South Korea backed off a tougher stance and America ended up with no real means to check that North Korea was keeping to its side of the bargain
    (which, it turns out, it wasn't). Now Mr Kim has even thrown out the few international monitors who were casting an eye on the plutonium-laden spent fuel-rods stored as part of that earlier deal. And, his wary eye on toppling statues in Baghdad, he now dismisses all inspections as a pretext for war. In fact the opposite is true. Had Saddam Hussein decid
  16. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Any interest in this anymore? NK has been making more threats on nuclear front, on the humanitarian front they're eating children, and SK and Japan are showing signs of joining with the US on common policy...not a good sign for the blackmailer in Pyongyang.

    KK EDIT: I edited the link because it was widening the page.
  17. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    This topic has certainly quieted down, with the war in Iraq...but also since China started to deal with NK in a way that makes them more accountable, and since Japan and SK have gotten on board with the US policy.

    Many have said that there will be a lot of reckoning to do in South Korea, when the sins and humanitarian disaster of the NK regime are exposed (upon its inevitable collapse). That the politicians arguing for 'sunshine' in NK now will look foolish when the death camps and cannibalism comes to light. What do you think?

    Oh, and remember all of the grousing about the Nobel Prize Carter and others got for his 1994 deal with North Korea? Well, turns out that SK had to bribe the North to start talks.

    THE 2000 Nobel Peace Prize won by former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung was under a cloud yesterday after an independent investigator found his government had secretly paid communist North Korea $US100 million ($151 million) to take part in a reconciliation summit.

    The historic meeting between Mr Kim and his northern counterpart, Kim Jong-il, in the North Korean capital Pyongyang in June 2000 was the crowning moment of Kim Dae-jung's presidency, with both countries pledging to end 50 years of bitterness and pursue a path to eventual reunification.

    But the independent counsel, Song Doo-hwan, after a 70-day investigation, declared yesterday that the Government's payment to impoverished North Korea was "related" to the meeting and had been hidden from public scrutiny.
  18. OCjunkie Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2003
    I doubt there will be a reckoning.

    Put yourself in South Korea's shoes. Do you really think any attitude other than benevolence will bring North and South closer together? We're more than 150 times stronger than them economicaly and 50% more stronger militarily. They have every reason to even be AFRAID of us. And pushing a desperate person is never a good idea.

    We can't afford a war, and we can't afford to reunify with (or in such case, aquire) an economicaly collapsed country.

    You can talk of the injustice of death camps and all, but what can you do? South Korea is in no position to DEMAND to shut down anything,, it's hard enough just to get them to talk with us.

    The Sunshine Policy is the only policy availiable to us. Americans have to understand that.
  19. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    Many have said that there will be a lot of reckoning to do in South Korea, when the sins and humanitarian disaster of the NK regime are exposed (upon its inevitable collapse). That the politicians arguing for 'sunshine' in NK now will look foolish when the death camps and cannibalism comes to light. What do you think?

    I'm curious 7, are you advocating that South Korea take a more hawkish stand, if so what do you think that this will achieve?

    There is no doubt that terrible things are happening in North Korea but that is not the responsibilty of the South. They will look after there own interest's first and if that means ignoring the death camps then so be it. It may seem harsh but it is understandable.
  20. McLaren Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 1, 2002
    star 2
  21. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    It looks as if North Korea's drug and ballistic missile exports are going to end, according to USA Today.

    Oh, by the way, it's already had one major consequence. Japan's taking a more... assertive defense posture, and they're planning two carriers (yeah, I know, globalsecurtiy.org reports this as DDH-X, but they have flat decks and islands - they're carriers), and possibly more.
  22. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    North Korea has requested multilateral Nuclear talks. Traditionally, they have insisted that the quarrel is with the US alone. Why would they do that?
    ...But the North Koreans have been under heavy pressure from their traditional allies: communist China and no-longer-communist Russia.

    Alarmed by the worsening crisis, and partly to head off action in the Security Council, the Chinese have been exerting themselves.

    They hosted three-way talks with North Korea and the US in April and have been trying to arrange something more ambitious.

    ...It seems the North Koreans insisted on having Russia at the table, perhaps in the belief that it and China would support them against the other three.

    ...Five of the six states involved want North Korea to give up any nuclear weapons, though they differ on what if anything it should be given in return.

    And for the North Koreans, security means a cast-iron guarantee by the US that it will not attack them - a non-aggression pact.

    The Bush administration has refused to rule out military action, however impractical it may seem, given the dangers to South Korea.




    Background info

    N Korea suspends propaganda broadcasts
    North Korea has announced that it is to halt propaganda broadcasts to the South and has urged Seoul to reciprocate.

    The move appears to reflect concern in Pyongyang about the impact South Korean broadcasts have on its population.

    ...Although North Koreans are officially banned from listening to news from outside and radios are modified to receive only programmes broadcast by the state, an increasing number of North Koreans are now accessing information from abroad, human rights groups say.

    According to South Korea's Hangyore newspaper, the fact that anti-South propaganda broadcasts "are virtually ineffective in practice" must also have been taken into consideration.

    And by moving first to stop the propaganda, the North "scored political points in terms of giving momentum to the mood for reconciliation, co-operation and peace", the paper said.

    But, it added, "whatever motives North Korea has, its move to stop propaganda broadcasts against South Korea is very welcome, and we should reciprocate positively".

    "If we play down North Korea's decision to stop its broadcasts as a move to ditch an outdated 'drug' and favour continuing our anti-North broadcasts deemed still effective, it is exactly a display of Cold War attitude.

    "The day of national reconciliation will come closer when we extend respect and trust, especially in these difficult times," it concluded.


    Or, maybe they feel the grip loosening, and the South should continue to broadcast? Who knows.
  23. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    War contingency plans for NK
    Including some interesting asymmetric/destabilising options.

    Recent Korea Briefing
    ** GREAT clearinghouse for recent developments **


    Fear of US Attack Forced NK to Come to Negotiating Table
    Korean media source asserts that the Chinese told the N Koreans flat out that the US would invade, and not to expect any help from the PRC. And advised them to go to the table to talk with the US, which NK has taken to heart in recent developments. American foreign policy has, I think, influenced the Chinese to take this (very constructive) stance on the Korean peninsula, and NK to appear more willing to negotiate.
  24. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Can it be that the new American poliy of playing hardball against rouge regimes, while certainly causing some short term instability, will lead to many long term solutions to ongoing problems?
  25. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.