It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Betrayal From North Korea Could Lead To Conflict

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Possibilities for continued peace in the Korean peninsula are beginning to dwindle. The dynamics have shifted since the last talks fifteen months ago. When North Korea tested a nuclear bomb two months ago, it alienated itself from its only ally. The sense of betrayal comes from the 360,000 soldier who died during the Korean war 53 years ago. The opinions of the situation now include that having crossed the nuclear threshold it is unlikely that North Korea will give up such weapons, and from that China will be the biggest looser.
 



www.theaustralian.news.com.au
THE prospects for continued peace in north Asia depend on the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear status, which resume in Beijing today after 15 stormy political months on the Korean peninsula.
The dynamics have shifted dramatically since the last talks. When Pyongyang tested its first nuclear bomb two months ago, defying pleas from Beijing, it alienated itself from its only ally.

The extent of that alienation has been revealed in essays by China's leading strategic thinkers. The bitter sense of betrayal felt in China about its communist neighbour, on whose behalf 360,000 soldiers, mainly volunteers, died during the Korean war 53 years ago, sets the tone for the extraordinarily frank essays in China Security.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Tensions have been running high in the Korean peninsula for some time, that I have been aware. I just did not think a war was really looming in the near future. I don't think any one will disagree that the leader of North Korea is a dictator. Without some for of checks and balances a dictator with nuclear weapons could mean trouble. So I can see why China would be concerned about such. I do remember the US being concerned as far back as the late 1970s. When the reactors were first being built. Then President Carter considered bombing them to prevent the weapons from being developed. Seeing what is happening now I wonder what would be if North Korea had been stopped then.

Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com
voanews.com
www.bangkokpost.com
www.zeenews.com

[edit on 17-12-2006 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I'm curious as to why you used the word "betrayal"? Are you saying that N. Korea betrayed the Chinese trust of vise versa? By your tone, I assume it's the former rather then the latter.

How would bombing them during the Carter administration stop this from happening? I thought they obtained most of their material, equipment and experience in the 90s courtesy of various Western and Eastern Nuclear Powers(naming no names though as I don't want to start a debate).



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   


I'm curious as to why you used the word "betrayal"? Are you saying that N. Korea betrayed the Chinese trust of vise versa?


I took my cues from the news article that I posted. The idea that I got is that the Chinese feel betrayed because during the fifteen month period between talks the North Koreans went ahead with the test of there nuclear weapon.


How would bombing them during the Carter administration stop this from happening? I thought they obtained most of their material, equipment and experience in the 90s courtesy of various Western and Eastern Nuclear Powers


I do not have any source to back this up but I am commenting on my memory from television news. In the late 70s it was reported that Carter had photographs of a reactor that was being built. It is the reactors that produce bomb grade material which is why it was said Carter considered bombing the reactor. It is my understanding that is how North Korea produced its bomb grade material.
I was just pondering that if it had been bombed at that time that this mess might not be happening now. I know that is rather unlikely, as was proven when Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. Although be it that bombing did set Iraq back enough that when they invaded Kuwait they were just months away from having a nuclear weapon.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Yeah im stumped as to why its such a dramatic event?

Nkorea have stepped away from the line, they have come back to talks and declared no more tests.


Doesnt that mean there going to tow the line?

Obviously, China faced up to Nkorea and MADE it fly straight.

So unless Nkorea is planning on defying China, Im pretty sure there going to be push overs.


China + USA V Nkorea... isnt what the nkoreans want



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   


China + USA V Nkorea... isnt what the nkoreans want


Yes that is very true! However I just do think you need to remember that North Korea has been a very baligerant country that has rarely if ever done any thing some one else thought it should do. The debate and requests not to pursue nuclear weapons and fissionable material goes back to the late 1970s and see where diplomacy has gotten on that issue?
I am sure North Korea does not want a conflict with China, but I sure don't see that country being deterred from the path that its current leader wants.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
If North Korea was a more democratic country, I could see diplomacy becoming a good option

As the case is... I believe the only thing that would ease the matters in Asia would be the killing of KimJong wich would hopefully lead to the country's collapse of government.

Of course, China wouldnt like that because of the border trouble that would occure with all the refugees

It's near impossible to see a progressive liberalisation of North Korea, a good scenario would be the death of KimJong (idealy in an accident), a collapse of the personnality cult he has installed and South Korean Forces stepping in to take control (SK forces, not US nor UN, SK, otherwise, it might be seen as an invasion by the local)

and THEN, we would be able to ensure the demilitarisation of the Area



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I dunno, I reackon ol Kim yong ill is just a bit of a stirrer.

He was so defiant, threatend major war should the US impose sanctions..
then boom, they gave it all up and agreed to talks.

China has a major sway over nkorea I believe.
Enough so, I think Nkorea isnt going to be making much headlines news in the next decade.
You might even see a elderly kim yong start softening up, now that china is prepared to stand in its way on an agreesive assault.


I think it just proves you dont HAVE To go to war, to change a countries direction..

lets see how these talks go eh?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Oh I don't believe War is a good option, especially with a country that might have nuclear weapons

I just don't see Kim softening up

As for my line about South Korean forces taking control, it would pretty much be the only safe way to reunification, and technicaly not an invasion. I even think the SK would be nicely welcomed by the people of NorthKorea

Of course, you never know

But im unsure that the line about China feels betrayed mean they are willing to put a end to the north korean belligerence



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianGlasnost
It's near impossible to see a progressive liberalisation of North Korea, a good scenario would be the death of KimJong (idealy in an accident), a collapse of the personnality cult he has installed and South Korean Forces stepping in to take control (SK forces, not US nor UN, SK, otherwise, it might be seen as an invasion by the local)


Canadian,
I agree with most everything thing you said, I think you made a lot of good points. As I recall KimJong does have children. If he should die I think the populace of North Korea would be ready to accept one of his children as ruler in his place. The people there are so controlled I really don't think revolution is in the language. If South Korea were to intervene weather they were asked to or not I don't see that happening with out some level of support from the U.S. I say that because there is the U.S. presence in South Korea. Aside from that, I do think you laid out a best possible scenario for a transition of North Korea.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I dunno, I reackon ol Kim yong ill is just a bit of a stirrer.

He was so defiant, threatend major war should the US impose sanctions..
then boom, they gave it all up and agreed to talks.


Yes he has been defiant, but he has agreed to talk on and off for years. I don't really see this round being any different then all the rest. The only new thing in the mix will be what China does.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Thank you RedGolem

I agree US support to SK is most probable, what would be dangerous would be US Troops In North Korea. I fear the locals will simply react by being violent to US forces and even UN because of the propaganda.

I simply think they would be more eager to collaborate with South Korean personnel than with complete strangers.

In any case, it would not be an easy transition and everything should be put in place to ease that transition.

As for the US support, I see it more like logistics, some airsupport, that wouldnt be that bad, or just political support. Anything that wouldnt imply sending US soldiers on the field



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianGlasnost

As for the US support, I see it more like logistics, some airsupport, that wouldnt be that bad, or just political support. Anything that wouldnt imply sending US soldiers on the field


Canadian,
I think that would be the ideal situation and the most sensible the way I see it. I think South Korea and China might agree. Especially since as I remember North Korea does have many missiles pointed at Soul South Korea.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
This would justify the South Korean participation in a matter that concerns their very national security

As for China, if the presence of SK troops take care of the situation and can stop refugees from trying to go to China and if it can stabilise the Area, I believe they will agree

China might even offer Advisors to disarm those missiles. I think North Korean would be friendly to Chinese People



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The only good situation China has is if South Korea takes control of North Korea...

This would a.) Destroy the nuclear threat
b.) Prevent MILLIONS of refugees pouring into China
c.) Stabilize security in Asia.


I don't see any other situation....

However, South korea "taking control" of North Korea seems to be an impossible task. Firstly, it would be an insanely costly war with HEAVY casualities... what sort of incentive does S.K. have to reunify with NK at this time and instance? Secondly, NK has THOUSANDS of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and can plummet SK's capitol in an instants notice.


I just don't see how this situuation can be cleaned up...

I think the best chance for a stabilized NK is for us to invent the mind control machine and simply mind control Kim and change NK.
Other than that, I don't see any other way.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
No need for a War if the regime collapse by itself...

The regime is so centered around the personality cult that if Kim was to disappear it might be a shock strong enough to annihilate the institutions in place

With Kim gone, who would give the order to those artillery pieces to fire upon Seoul?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianGlasnost
No need for a War if the regime collapse by itself...

The regime is so centered around the personality cult that if Kim was to disappear it might be a shock strong enough to annihilate the institutions in place

With Kim gone, who would give the order to those artillery pieces to fire upon Seoul?


I think your right with the Kim being gone part. But the society would not collapse to fast at all. There will be some one else to step in rather quickly and the population is so controlled, in my opinion, that they will be ready to do what ever the new leader wants. But that is what I think would happen because of the cult dictatorship that is in North Korea.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Who would be the most probable candidate for succession? Is there an analyst here that could tell us that?

The regime is so secretive it is hard to know

The population is indeed very controlled, but it's still the moment where the regime would be the weakest, right after the death of Kim Jong, hopefully during power struggles



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Hear is something new I came across this morning.

Freshly armed with its nuclear bargaining chip, North Korea has set out an uncompromising stance at its first international talks since testing an atomic device in October.



More than a year after pulling out of the Six Party Talks and two months after being hit by UN sanctions following the underground detonation of a nuclear bomb, Pyongyang confronted America, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia today with what the US called "an exhaustive list" of demands.



Bout what I thought. They are keeping balligerant. Not going to move from its stance.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
A list of demands? To the US, China, Japan South Korea AND Russia?

Who the hell do they think they are? Talk about having no sense of reality

I think they will only piss off the wrong people by doing that

Oh well, let's see those Terrorist-like demands:

UN dropping the sanctions, Sure... hand over that nuclear stuff
US changing Hostile Stance, how about they pull out their artillery locked on Seoul?
Stop targeting the offshore bank accounts, Oh sure, why would anyone want to stop money laundering operations?

and the last but not the least,
A ****ing light-water nuclear reactor... They GOT to be kidding right?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianGlasnost

A ****ing light-water nuclear reactor... They GOT to be kidding right?


Canadian,
actually the light watter reactor will not make bomb grade material, so that would be something those who do not want them to have fissionable material would want. But the down side is it would require monitoring to make sure the waste material is disposed of properly.

As to everything else, now you have seen what I meant earlier when I said they are belligerent. They don't think any one will take military action against them so they will play there nuclear weapon card along with every thing else. And for the last 40 years or so they have been right. No matter what the leader of North Korea does, no other country will stand up to him in such a way to get him to change his ways.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join