Between a rock and a hard place - Page 6

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2003, 18:26

? In Kuwait they were an invading force. They had to occupy the country, in addition to protecting the SA border, the Syrian border and keeping an eye on the Iranian border.

Sure the 6 months probably helped them. But they were whipped before they started to fight. Too much ground, nowhere to hide.

TCO · January 13, 2003, 18:31

We were a lot further from our borders...

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2003, 18:32

How big's your shipping capacity again, GP?

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2003, 18:32

They couldn't attack your lines of supply. You could attack theirs. That makes a bit of a difference too.

TCO · January 13, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
How big's your shipping capacity again, GP?

A lot slower and less than their capacity to just drive down the highway. but irrelevant. You made a point about time to dig in. They had 6 months of knowing an invasion was coming.

Ted Striker · January 13, 2003, 19:10

Well them Koreans have a nice network of tunnels dug in.

But that doesn't work anymore.

lightblue · January 13, 2003, 19:45

Gulf War 2 would be a walk in the park, and could be started and finished in the very near future (I keep hearin second half of February). It is quite clear to see that whatever else happens it is more than likely going to be done, otherwise Bush would not have moved another 60000+ personnel out to the Gulf over the last weekend.

Korea would be an awful lot harder though. The terrain does not suit mass tank warfare which is how the iraqis were mopped up after being bombed for 3 weeks. It'd be more like Afghanistan, but against an army which is fairly well equipped/trained and not a ragtag mob of muhajeddin with AK47s and some Stingers.

Not to forget that the threat of a nuclear escalation is very much more of a threat in NKs case than Iraq. The furthest Iraq will (can probably) go is chemical weapons. NK is thought to have chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons and long range missiles. i have read that analysts expect that NK will have intercontinental missiles capable of reaching hawaii or Alaska within the next 5 years. All in all a different proposition than Iraq.

Ted Striker · January 13, 2003, 19:48

If we could get China to go along, and shut down the border (allowing only refugees across and not trade) we could completely starve the Koreans army to its knees.

orange · January 13, 2003, 19:48

lightblue - what do you base the first part of your post on. I've heard everything from 6 months to 2 years with 30 years of occupation necessary for installing a working regime. Now, granted that's probably a little exaggerated, but where do you get <1 month?

TCO · January 13, 2003, 19:52

WE don't know for sure that the NK have nukes yet.

TCO · January 13, 2003, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
lwith 30 years of occupation necessary for installing a working regime.

This is the part that worries me. I mean heck, we're still occupying Germany!

I don't want those Iraqi's getting all dependant on us, expecting us to fight all their wars for them.

lightblue · January 13, 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
lightblue - what do you base the first part of your post on. I've heard everything from 6 months to 2 years with 30 years of occupation necessary for installing a working regime. Now, granted that's probably a little exaggerated, but where do you get <1 month?

I meant that it would start in the end of Feb, not finished.

As for when it would finish, I'd say if you do it the way you have been fighting your wars, you'll bomb them to pieces (thoguh I am not sure there's much armor/planes/airfields etc left to bomb) for a couple of weeks and then send in the ground troops. If you go for an inside-out approach and drop people in or near Baghdad you'll have Saddam on the run/dead within weeks and resistance would be limited to small pockets of loyalists (Republican Guard perhaps).

Yes you will have to stay and manage the place for a bit, like you did in Japan after WW2. A lot of the troops will be freed up though.

Sikander · January 13, 2003, 21:54

I think the #1 priority for the U.S. is to stall here until the situation in Iraq comes into clearer focus. Of course the NKs are putting the pedal to the metal because of the situation in Iraq. Once Iraq is either a no-go or gone, the U.S. can speak with more authority. Thus all of this backpedalling, New Mexican diplomacy etc. may serve to confuse the NKs and draw the whole thing out.

In the long run I think everyone in the region is on the same page. This regime must go. While the Chinese probably wouldn't be thrilled with a unified Korea on their border, they may find it the preferable alternative to a nuclear armed crazy capable of striking or drawing in the world's greatest nuclear powers, as well as 3 of the G7 states. NK might even spur the Japanese and SKs to start their own nuclear programs, which China definitely doesn't want (but which wouldn't be bad for the U.S., at least in the short run).

TCO · January 13, 2003, 22:02

Yeah. I agree with Sikie.

David Floyd · January 13, 2003, 22:05

Except on the subject of potential Japanese nuclear armament - I'll go with MtG on that one, in that I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Sikander · January 13, 2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Except on the subject of potential Japanese nuclear armament - I'll go with MtG on that one, in that I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

I used to think so as well, but there seems to be a lot of rumors about Japan's nuclear capability. I have heard on several occasions that the Japanese have disassembled nuclear weapons (I doubt this one), and I have also heard that they have well-developed contingency plans to produce nuclear weapons within six months of the orders being given. This one I do believe. They certainly are no strangers to working with nuclear power, and have had plenty of time to consider its more destructive capabilities. Given a choice between being blackmailed by the NKs (say after the U.S. has pulled back its nuclear umbrella) and developing their own weapons, I think the Japanese would go nuclear.

Ben Kenobi · January 13, 2003, 23:32

"Yes, they're under pressure. But remember that when it comes down to it they're willing to sacrifice a hell of a lot more for their pride than we are."

-Frogger

So how can we turn this to an advantage? I agree with Frogger that face-saving is a huge issue for Koreans in particular and Asians in general. Is their someway to make it look like they are getting the better half of the deal, while getting the NK's to step down?

It may be necessary to appear 'weak' in order to defuse the situation, but this would be a much better option then war.

"WE don't know for sure that the NK have nukes yet."

GP

Until we know all the facts, we'd better follow David Floyd's advice to keep our powder dry. No sense stirring up unnecessary trouble.

TCO · January 14, 2003, 00:01

Oh...sorry. I guess I should look to Floyd for guidance.

chequita guevara · January 14, 2003, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
I'm not lying to you. If you really don't think I have it right, you can go check out the microfiche at a library. The war got MUCH more popular after we won it.

Heck, it got much more popular the moment it began. After the first week the anti-war movement for all intents and purposes collapsed. Hill & Knowlton did a very good PR campaign with the yellow ribbons and "we support our troops" (also the people behind the fake stolen incubators story).

KrazyHorse · January 14, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

This is the part that worries me. I mean heck, we're still occupying Germany!

I don't want those Iraqi's getting all dependant on us, expecting us to fight all their wars for them.

The bad part is when you start to get creative and invent wars that you can fight for other people...

Pekka · January 14, 2003, 01:34

My honest opinion:
We need to combine forces. We need to be determined. We need to get the US, China, EU and Russia with great goal and destroy NK right now when we still have the chance. Maybe get Australia, Japan and SK in it too.
The attitude of NK is that they will become more and more powerfull, and definitely NOT friendly or compromising. They WILL start bullying around soon.

I'm afraid they already have a great army, and trying to secretly prepare the attack is not very possible. They must have good recon all the time and intelligence working. They are hardcore and they mean business. We must meet their demands and give them what they want, full attack. We can provoke them to say 'we hate you, we will destroy you' and right after that, FULL attack, unleash everything we have and pound it back to stoneage. Sounds harsh, but I believe it's the only way and the way of the least pain and suffer. And we need to do it FAST. Soon it will be too late.

Ned · January 14, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
I think the #1 priority for the U.S. is to stall here until the situation in Iraq comes into clearer focus. Of course the NKs are putting the pedal to the metal because of the situation in Iraq. Once Iraq is either a no-go or gone, the U.S. can speak with more authority. Thus all of this backpedalling, New Mexican diplomacy etc. may serve to confuse the NKs and draw the whole thing out.

In the long run I think everyone in the region is on the same page. This regime must go. While the Chinese probably wouldn't be thrilled with a unified Korea on their border, they may find it the preferable alternative to a nuclear armed crazy capable of striking or drawing in the world's greatest nuclear powers, as well as 3 of the G7 states. NK might even spur the Japanese and SKs to start their own nuclear programs, which China definitely doesn't want (but which wouldn't be bad for the U.S., at least in the short run).

We cannot invade NK without at least Chinese consent. This has to be a UN authorized operation not unlike Iraq. The UN has to send NK an ultimatum, that is, if it remains defiant over the next few months.

Of course the US is stalling because of Iraq. The truth is that we really do not have the capability to fight two wars at once. But once Iraq is settled, the NK's had better have come to their senses. Or else.

TCO · January 14, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

The bad part is when you start to get creative and invent wars that you can fight for other people...

I am all for not going into NK [teensy font] anytime in the next few months [/teensy font]

chequita guevara · January 14, 2003, 02:43

I do think NK would be a qualitatively different kind of war.

Remember, it's the most famous of the classic blunders, "never get involved in a land war in Asia."

Ned · January 14, 2003, 04:54

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I do think NK would be a qualitatively different kind of war.

Remember, it's the most famous of the classic blunders, "never get involved in a land war in Asia."

Che, who said that? Eisenhower?

But this time, if it comes to war, I think the Chinese will be on our side.

Arrian · January 14, 2003, 10:41

Vissini from The Princess Bride

But he was wrong about the other classic blunder...

I confess to being somewhat shocked at Pekka's post.

Note to self: never piss off the Finns. Next thing you know, a worldwide coalition will flatten you.

-Arrian

Arrian · January 14, 2003, 13:10

By the way, I just came across this (actually in the Miami Herald, but I guess they got it from Newsday):

Quote:

A glimpse into how North Koreans think
By ERIK CORNELL

Since the implosion of world communism, North Korea alone has continued on its path, despite economic collapse leading to famine and to a humiliating dependence on the detested capitalist world for its food supply. Not even calamities seem to inspire its leaders to reconsider their policy. On the contrary. When the head of state, Kim Il Sung, died in 1994, his son was appointed his successor, but the deceased was declared President for Eternity.

It is a unique, bizarre and impractical mentality that the United States confronts in its standoff with the North Koreans over their decision to resume building nuclear weapons. The regime has booted out U.N. weapons inspectors and pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

TRADITION OF ISOLATION

How can we better understand the mind of a regime that embraces famine as a necessary step in its war against imperialism and then seems willing to risk all in a war with the most powerful nation on Earth?

• There is a tradition of isolation, which began long before the North-South divide on the Korean peninsula, much of it by choice. Korea has three neighbors -- China, Japan and Russia -- and all have done their best to dominate it. Withdrawal may be a reflexive response: Keep everybody out, and we have no problems. And there is an added benefit in the totalitarian state: It keeps people from questioning the system.

Japan's navy opened the Kingdom of Korea in 1876. For centuries it had been a vassal of China, known as the Hermit Kingdom, isolated from foreign influences. The Japanese made the peninsula a colony in 1910, which again led to isolation.

After the Japanese lost World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to divide the country. In 1950 the North tried to conquer the South, which led to three years of war, after which the Soviets installed a communist regime under Kim Il Sung. For a long time, there were only eight transport connections a week by air and train with the outside world, all to China and Russia.

South Korea depended on U.S. protection for its survival and became an economic force as well as a democracy. But the North knew only the communist world -- and became isolated within that. Pyongyang used the growing estrangement between Moscow and Beijing to increase its freedom of action, especially to force industrialization and foil Moscow's plan that it be mostly a supplier of raw materials.

Industrialization was realized at an amazing pace, and North Korea became the wonder child among the communists, as did South Korea among the market economies. But the prize came with great isolation in the communist world, as Kim Il Sung proclaimed his version of Marxism-Leninism superior to Moscow's.

• The influence of their Confucian inheritance cannot be overestimated. In the absence of different ideologies, and years after they stopped studying Confucian texts -- that belongs to the feudal past -- the North Koreans believe as they have historically.

Confuscianism proclaims that the state shall be governed by morally advanced personalities. This is why workers in the North, even after horribly long days on the job, will attend supervised studies of Kim's scriptures in the evening. Politics and morals become identical, and dissent is considered immoral.

To debate with North Koreans is like having a discussion with austere Christian or Muslim fundamentalists. If we don't reason as they do, we are unworthy, godless, condemnable. If they have to deal with us, they stress that we are ignorant of the true character of the problem.

In old China it was often stressed that ''The Master (i.e. Confucius) has said.'' In North Korea the phrase is, ''The Great Leader has taught us.'' The power of Kim Il Sung and his son, Kim Jong Il, is based on the mandate of heaven. An ordinary man does not oppose the will of heaven, he follows.

I cannot compare it to any other government I have dealt with. When a Yugoslav colleague arrived, he got a house allotted as an embassy and was presented a contract to sign. He asked to have a lawyer to consult but received no answer. Finally he was asked: ''Do you question our proletarian justice?'' He signed. (In retrospect, what a silly question! Of course, there are no lawyers in North Korea.)

• The people strongly believe in Marxism-Leninism and that they own the science of the future. Marxism claims to have discovered the scientific laws guiding society's development inevitably to socialism and communism. Those who believe this become impregnable to other views.

A practical example of this occurred when a Swedish technician I knew was drilling the subway of Pyongyang. He had a power unit yielding 12 horsepower, meaning he could connect three 4-horsepower drills. But his North Korean collaborators claimed that they, assisted by The Great Leader's thinking, should perform better by connecting four 4-horsepower drills. He tried to explain that this was not feasible -- in vain. He had to step aside and let them learn for themselves. But even when proved wrong, North Koreans will never confess it. When the case is lost, they change the subject.

ECONOMIC FAILURE

This same kind of mentality accounts for the steep failure of the economy. The Marxist labor theory of value stipulates that it is solely manual labor input that creates value, while machinery does not. Interest charges are considered equivalent to exploitation of laborers and are forbidden. This left no yardstick for measuring cost-efficiency, which inevitably led to waste and uneconomic exploitation of resources. With the Soviet Union's collapse, its economic aid and cheap oil disappeared and the production apparatus fell from stagnation into a deep downward descent. The size of the calamities are well known and the situation is desperate, to say the least.

Why do they stick with a system that seems so broken? In our countries you can find people believing that Darwin was wrong. In North Korea they believe that science is on their side and that all obstacles are temporary and must be overcome. They are believers.

Erik Cornell opened the Swedish embassy in Pyongyang in 1975 and is author of North Korea Under Communism.

©2003 Newsday

If this is anywhere close to an accurate charaterisation of the ordinary North Korean's mindset, it's quite possibly the most effective use of brainwashing the world has ever seen (or rather, hasn't seen). Further, it reinforces my belief that the NK regime is unlikely to collapse on its own.

What a mess.

-Arrian