Korean Crisis, Thoughts and Discussion

Apologies as a poster below correctly pointed out, the article that I linked to was out of date and therefore irrelevant. It seems as if 'The Intel Hub' are 'remixing' old material with new to bump up their content.

If a moderator could kindly move this retitled thread to the relevant forum, it would be appreciated.

However I shall leave my thoughts below if you wish to discuss them further it would be welcomed.



With both North Korea and Russia taking the view that the current tension in the Korean peninsula could esculate to a nuclear war it may be time to consider this current state of affairs a little more seriously.


A few points that highlight the current tension as 'unusual';

The sinking of the South Korean Ship represents the largest single death toll since the Korean War.

Russia is actually taking 'security measures' in response to this and also commited to creating its very own missile defence shield at the border in August 2009.

The usual 'chest puffing' rhetoric that we are used to hearing from Kim and North Korea is being not only mirrored by the US but they seem to be eager in escalating it further. It is very much like the boy who cried wolf; North Korea issue the usual hostile threats for years and now the US answers and takes it to a new level. North Korea seem to be uneasy as a response to this.

The US has been training Japanese F-15 pilots in mid-air-refuelling the last few months. This would be convienient in regards to assisting a possible aerial campaign with long range sorties.

The US is currently negotiationg its continued ownership of a US airbase in Japan.

Flagships of three Russian fleets have been sent to the Sea of Japan for coming excercises in June.

To conclude, I fear that we could be looking at a US agenda that may have been decided long before this latest incident. North Korea is not used to another terrier barking provocative rhetoric back at it and the US seems enthusiastic on responding this time.

I would like to hear the views of those that are interested in this article and urge constructive posting please.







[edit on 28-5-2010 by Skellon]

reply to post by Skellon


Links in the first two paragraphs of the article link to stories from 2009.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by mistafaz]

well if NK has dropped the treaty
then the Korean Peninsula is at
a de facto state of war again.

so Defcon 2 is warranted

I figured we were already at DEFCON 2. Maybe the Korean thing would bump us up to DEFCON 3, but not necessarily. It sure wouldn't move us up to 4 or 5 unless the attack was on a U.S. ship, and Alaska or Hawaii were at risk of imminent attack.

Anyway, let's have Obama send troops there. Maybe that'll get us more directly involved.

This is an old report from 2009. there have been no known nuclear tests in a wee while from North Korea.

g

WOPR: How about a nice game of chess?

Link

Sorry, had to.

Its not a good thing. Japan, Russian, South Korea and the US seem to side against North Korea. What exactly would North Korea have to gain?

This won't be a repeat of the Korean War.

Negotiations are always warranted.

North Korea sank a South Korean ship. Wars have been started for less.

I am eager to see how this unfolds.

...The 7th fleet is also in this area of operation.....with the super carrier George Washington in its makeup....90 fixed wing aircraft.

Very interesting......

Originally posted by Blue Shift
I figured we were already at DEFCON 2. Maybe the Korean thing would bump us up to DEFCON 3, but not necessarily. It sure wouldn't move us up to 4 or 5 unless the attack was on a U.S. ship, and Alaska or Hawaii were at risk of imminent attack.

Anyway, let's have Obama send troops there. Maybe that'll get us more directly involved.

Got that backward, Blue:

From Wikipedia:

DEFCON 5
This is the condition used to designate normal peacetime military readiness. An upgrade in military preparedness is typically made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and announced by the United States Secretary of Defense.

DEFCON 4
This refers to normal, increased intelligence and the heightening of national security measures.

DEFCON 3
This refers to an increase to force readiness above normal. Radio call signs used by U.S. armed forces change to currently classified codes.

DEFCON 2
This refers to a further increase in force readiness just below maximum readiness. The most notable time it was declared was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, although the declaration was limited to Strategic Air Command. It is not certain how many times this level of readiness has been reached.

DEFCON 1
This refers to maximum readiness. It is not certain whether this has ever been used, but it is reserved for imminent or ongoing attack on U.S. armed forces or U.S. territory by a foreign military power.

people keep saying what do norh korea have to gain i would answer that with what do they have to lose. people also keep telling me how an american backed south korea could destroy the north because they have better technoligy i think thats wrong and has been proven so in the past, the russian defeat in afganistan for example. dont underestimate the north i dont think they would be to worried about using a couple of those bombs they have tucked away if that happens you can say bye bye soul, bye bye alot of american troops in the region and bye bye to the world as were used to it.

This is not recent information.

The nuclear bomb tested was the one discussed last year.

North Korea ripped up the armistice treaty after the international community condemned their nuke test.

There is nothing in this article that is current and there is nothing pertaining to the situation now.

reply to post by lpowell0627


Perhaps not, but the US and Russian fleets are bound for the region now, and the NK subs are unaccounted for, and recently some Chinese subs came worryingly close to Japanese waters. Defcon 2 at the moment, which means that defcon 1 could be any minute...

Kim may be crazy but he isn't stupid , all I see is more of the same childish "look at me " saber rattling , he doesn't have the backing of China and it's debatable as to whether he even has a working Nuclear capability .
I think this will bubble for a while before everything settles down again and Kim tries to get his reward for falling back into line .

[edit on 28-5-2010 by gortex]

It's a hard one to call. I'm not really worried about NK's nukes - it's debatable they've even managed to test one properly, so they're clearly a long way from weaponizing it. They're like a small child with a box of damp old fireworks and some matches. Will it fizzle out? Will it blow up in their faces? Who knows. And clearly they haven't got enough devices to ensure a M.A.D. type scenario.

However, the threat of them using chemical/bio weapons if a war starts is more worrisome - that would probably justify using tactical nukes in retaliation to destroy all that artillery that threatens Seoul as quickly as possible.

Will it come to that? I dunno. The country is a mess, the leader is a crackpot who is running out of time, they feel threatened.....that's a dangerous combination.

Hi Skellon,

Great starting post. I too have been wondering about the intricacies of this recent escalation - on the surface it looks somewhat obvious, but there are also many areas that simply do not ring true.

How far back to step when considering the situation?

It always seemed ironic to me that there is N Korea, belligerent and vocal as they are, committing human rights tragedies on a major scale, sitting on a few nukes and going largely ignored by western superpowers.

On the other hand a couple of dubious dictators, saber rattling in the Arab world such as Saddam Hussein et al and we have all out war.

Conclusion obvious: Iraq is sitting on a wealth of largely unexploited oil - we did not go there to bring the Iraqis liberty, freedom, democracy and certainly not because of WMD. We were/are there primarily for the energy/oil resource.
Also as described in PNAC (Project for a New American Century)

What does N Korea have to offer anyone?

It has been suggested that Israel was "not" formed in 1947 in the first instance to provide a home for the Jews - this was in fact a secondary or tertiary goal. Instead Israel was formed as a "Bridgehead" for Western Superpowers to have access to the Middle Eastern area in general so as to have majority control of oil and energy resources there.

It is also alleged that the war in Afghanistan is NOT about Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Taliban with a capital T, or Terrorism - this is the illusion.

It has also been suggested that the War in Afghanistan is about establishing a "Bridgehead" once again, except this time for Western Superpowers to have access to Asian energy resources.

With the end result Western Superpowers have less dependence for energy upon Middle Eastern States, The Saudis and Russia.

We would also have China surrounded ;-)

Just thinking out loud

Thanks

Bravo

Originally posted by danielhanson420
people keep saying what do norh korea have to gain i would answer that with what do they have to lose. people also keep telling me how an american backed south korea could destroy the north because they have better technoligy i think thats wrong and has been proven so in the past, the russian defeat in afganistan for example. dont underestimate the north i dont think they would be to worried about using a couple of those bombs they have tucked away if that happens you can say bye bye soul, bye bye alot of american troops in the region and bye bye to the world as were used to it.

Good points all....

North Korea has everything to lose. They need to maintain the status quo. A war is not in their best benefit at all.

I don't think anyone is underestimating them. That's why we have moved to DEFCON 2. Being prepared is important.

Countries do learn from bad wars. No one likes to repeat defeat....although it does and has happened.