It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A War On Two Fronts?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 03:24 PM
Rumsfeld warns N. Korea
Says U.S. can fight both Iraq an N.Korea if necessary
Monday, December 23, 2002 Posted: 3:48 PM EST (2048 GMT)

Rumsfeld, left, answers reporters' questions during briefing with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned North Korea Monday against seizing on the U.S. focus on Iraq to press a nuclear weapons program and said Washington could fight and win two wars at once.

"I have no reason to believe that you're correct that North Korea feels emboldened because of the world's interest in Iraq," he told a reporter after the North took steps over the weekend to reactivate a nuclear reactor.

"If they do, it would be a mistake," he added at a Pentagon briefing, saying the U.S. military was perfectly capable of fighting two major regional conflicts plus the U.S.-declared war on terror at once, if necessary.

I Just wondered what everyone thought about this.For those who are blinded by the USA's apparent power,it may be a good time to remind everyone of China's reaction last time the west got involved in Korea.

Bush seems to be under the impression that only projected power is true power.I say that may well be true in a military sense.But,My American friends,This sort of continual warmaking(and laughably,playing the victim)will not gain you any RESPECT.

posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 07:05 PM
USA military policy states that they(the military) must be able to sustain war in 2 threaters of operation, now whether war in korea is immiment i don't know but the main factor in the outcome of this issue will be china and what they do if they support korea i'd pull of the gulf and divert forces to PACCOM(pacific command) cuz defeating china wud take a lot of work now of course this is based on the idea that we'd hafta fight china

[Edited on 24-12-2002 by f16falcon]

posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 10:30 PM
The US fought victoriously in 2 theaters during WW II against much stronger adversaries in my opinion (than Iraq and N. Korean). From what I have read recently it seems China is annoyed at its bastard little brother so, I highly doubt that if the US took military action to take out the nuclear facilities (which I doubt will happen anyway) that China would say much.

I just read in the UKs Guardian: that N. Korea has issued a series of threats, including one to destroy the earth. I think the dear leader and the rest of the DPRK government are a bunch of nuts. Though, I think Japan, S. Korea, China and Russia are better left to deal with the threat as they are more so in N. Koreas striking distance.

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 08:39 AM

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 09:54 AM
I agree with Bob..i think China is pissed at Korea..for the simple reason that China does not want a # load of millitary equpiment parked off there coast..And Korea is bring unwanted attention to that region..

my 2 copper pieces any way

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 05:29 PM
really china is pissed @ N. korea i didn;t know are they also pissed at vietnam

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 07:07 PM
In terms of applying a nuclear weapon to a battlefelid scenario you honestly have to posses as many as your opponent applies otherwise you risk annihilation.

When China influenced their war between the US and North Korea the political shape of the world was much different. As they say an army runs on its stomach and China gets its food from the US (as well as does Russia, Europe, the rest of the Orient, Africa and all the Arab States, South America and even Antarctica). Destroying the world only food source is useless and really stupid, as then there will be no food. Its so much that the US would treat providing food as a weapon as much at it
how do you send food to a country we are at war with??

North Koreas behavior in recent years has been an embarrassment to Chinese sentiments but if the US attacked her without provocation like for instance if they returned to complying with UN policies. China would be obliged to deal with the US.

As of today China released a democratic disident from prison and made this other response.

China renews call for U.S.-North Korean dialogue

BEIJING, Dec 24 (Reuters) - China renewed a call for dialogue between North Korea and the United States on Tuesday after Washington berated Beijing's Communist friend Pyongyang for removing U.N. monitoring equipment at a nuclear reactor.

China, North Korea's main ally, said it wanted a see the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

"We hope relevant sides can proceed in the overall interest of safeguarding peace and stability on the peninsula...and reach a resolution to the issue through dialogue," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

North Korea, denounced by President George W. Bush as part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran, has set alarm bells ringing by removing U.N. monitoring equipment at a nuclear reactor that is capable of yielding weapons-grade plutonium.

North Korea mothballed the reactor under a 1994 non-proliferation deal with the United States aimed at ending its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

But recently North Korea said it was reactivating the reactor to generate electricity.

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned Pyongyang against taking advantage of U.S. preparations for a possible war with Iraq to press ahead with a nuclear weapons programme but he said Washington was still trying resolve the crisis through diplomacy.

Asked for comment on North Korea's dismantling of the UN monitoring equipment, China -- which fought alongside North Korea against the United States in the 1950-53 Korean War, and remains Pyongyang's main ally -- said its position had not changed.

"We support the de-nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, are devoted to safeguarding peace and stability on the peninsula, and advocate resolving the issue through dialogue," the statement said.

High-ranking U.S. envoys stopping in Beijing in recent weeks have tried to persuade China to use its leverage over its reclusive neighbor.

12/24/02 03:15 ET

Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited.

There is another factor but.........

posted on Dec, 25 2002 @ 03:35 AM

Originally posted by John bull 1

I Just wondered what everyone thought about this.For those who are blinded by the USA's apparent power,it may be a good time to remind everyone of China's reaction last time the west got involved in Korea.

1) Korea War started when the North overunned the South.

2) UN troops ( only West troops ) had almost 80% of north-korea in their control in 1952, until the UN Council ( I'm still wonder why ) told them to go back under the 38 parralel.

3) North-Korea and China cannot fight against a western coalition in a new Korea War( even the USA alone can kick their a.s.s ). Why ? Because if it was possible for them ( NK & China ) to do it, it would be done since many years ! These country are NOT friendly and want only 1 thing : A new war against the South. And if they don't do it, it's only because they cannot do it !

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 09:43 PM
here is what I find to be alarming: This reactor that they are turning on won't really produce any electricity. It's a small reactor - I caught someone on CNN saying it would create enough power to run the reactor complex and not much more. YET it would be able to produce enough material for 5 nukes. N. Korea saying they need it to produce electricity is bull.

posted on Dec, 27 2002 @ 01:25 AM

My take on this possible confrontation with North Korea is that the U.S. Government, especially the Military are taking the North Korean reactivation of the nuclear reactor to have only one purpose; attempted blackmail. Blackmail with the U.S. as its major target with S. Korea and Japan as secondary targets and like all blackmail, money is the object.

North Korea is poor, has few exports, has few natural resources, its population is hungry (Yes, actually hungry).
They are litterally starving in a world region that is rich and fat. Is it our (U.S.) fault, No, of course not. Neither is it South Korea or Japan's fault, but to the hungry North Koreans it seems to be. So they threaten, boast and bluff, each time believing that one or all of these threatened countries will "cave-in" and come to their aid.
But up to now they have received precious little. Are we in danger of an attack (nuclear ?) from North Korea ? It is only a very small probibility, in my opinion.

If however the threats, bluffs and boasts should lead to an actual attack on U.S. Forces, the U.S. response will be certain, swift and concise. Remember the U.S. maintains over 20,000 troops along the de-militarized zone, with Air Force Bases in South Korea and others (Air Bases) in Okinawa & Japan. Naval Forces including aircraft carriers and guided missle crusiers are stationed within striking distance of North Korea. If a confrontation comes it will certainly include destruction of the Nuclear Capability of North Korea by B-1b and B-2 bombers with Naval launched Cruise missiles.

This is my take on the Korea threat, real but not eminent, More to come later.

Theodore L. Gieseking, USAFSS-SP

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Bob88
The US fought victoriously in 2 theaters during WW II against much stronger adversaries in my opinion (than Iraq and N. Korean). From what I have read recently it seems China is annoyed at its bastard little brother so, I highly doubt that if the US took military action to take out the nuclear facilities (which I doubt will happen anyway) that China would say much.

Get real, WWII was a different time, no other country had nukes and other biological weapons. You can't compare WWII with the situation today and besides US Force is relatively smaller today than during WWII but of course they are stronger. Not to mention that other countries fought side by side with US. In fact US came later into action. Ok now they'll fight together with other countries of course so I don't think US could do it alone.

I just read in the UKs Guardian: that N. Korea has issued a series of threats, including one to destroy the earth. I think the dear leader and the rest of the DPRK government are a bunch of nuts. Though, I think Japan, S. Korea, China and Russia are better left to deal with the threat as they are more so in N. Koreas striking distance.

Hmm interesting, well why don't we let the middle east countries take care of Iraq ? I think it's a bigger threat to mankind if one want to distroy the world. Iraq threat is nothing compared to that. What kind of threat is Iraq btw ? Can anyone explain that to me in hard facts ?

I thought Bush said he want to make the world safe. War on Terrorism, what a joke. It's the same as War on Drugs, War on Poverty etc. It'll only make things worse.

[Edited on 30-12-2002 by TigeriS]

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 10:33 PM
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and as a result desert Storm resulted. One of the reasons that this occured is because Saudi Arabia was concerned that his next moves was to invade them.

The country if Iraq has consistently refused to allow weapons inspections by the UN. After the 9/11/2001
Attack in the country of the United States it was determined that most if not all of the individuals responsible for hijacking and attacking the United
States were Saudi citizens.

This brings to mind the issue of what would happen if Saddam Hussein invaded Saudi Arabia. What would occur in relation to the military and population of that country? Effectively if Saddam Hussein succeeded in taking control of Saudi Arabia he would gain access to technology equivalent to what Israel has today.

If this scenario became relevant the potential does exist for a nuclear war in that theater of operations.

Someone acted to support and re-supply the country of Chechen in its conflict with the Russian Republic. In the initial stages those Chechen rebels attempted to take control of the Belly of Russia (It certainly was not Turkey). Essentially it was either Iraq or Iran and in that part of the world Iraq is more so the aggressor.

It is implied that Iraq has financially supported the efforts of suicide bombers, this by providing financial supports to surviving relatives.

As long as the Saudi military is enforce it is unlikely that Saddam Hussein could do anything to Saudi Arabia. Weapons of mass destruction would make that different. And as it stands today Saudi Arabia has given the US and UN permision to use its territory to launch an attack.

There exist a very good reason for the Russian Republic to support and become a member of NATO. Which by the way during the cold war, was an institution specifically designed to deal with the Warsaw Pact.

As far as Iraq is concerned might I sugest the sh!^ has hit the fan.

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 11:01 PM
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that South Korea has a powerful military of it's own. It has been designed to resist NKorean agression. If it came to open war the ROK army would be a formidable opponent for the North even without US assistance.
As for China being pissed off. North Korea does exactly waht China tells it to. This nuclear brinkmanship, I believe is acually the work of China to guage US action and responses.

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 11:40 PM
If North Korea were completely submissive to Chinese interests there would still be Chinese troops in that country. When the Korean War ended, despite the fact the US still maintains forces in South Korea. The Chinese all but left their present "allies" territory.

Best guess it was at the request of the North Korean authority. Chinas alliance with Korea is primarily one based in a North Korea, which is prepared to fight a war only with conventional warfare. If North Korea goes Nuclear China will have to face the reality of addressing its interests with the United States, which supplies a substantial percentage of food to that country.

Collin Powell did state today that war with North Korea was not an issue. This bringing up the matter that this country (North Korea) has interests primarily in terms of a benefit package.

posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 11:51 PM
The reason that Chinese troops left Korea in the 50's was due to the clause which they inserted into the armistace. That clause was that all foreign must keave Korean soil. So that is why the Chinese left. The US left a presence because the SK President wouldn't accept an armistace without US military support.

As for the US supplying food to China, what about Australia and the other great larders of the world. If the US stopped selling foodstuffs to China then they would just look elsewhere. Besides the Chicoms don't seem to be particularly worried if they do have a food shortage. It's happened many times before.

And who do you think supplies NK with all their military hardware. It ain't Russia, it's China. NK has been a puppet of the Chicoms for nearly 50 years.

posted on Dec, 31 2002 @ 12:51 AM
The Aussies are great in relation to providing wheat; otherwise its the US, which gives the rest. In a study prepared in the 70s it was made apparent that by the year 2000 the US in a pact with Canada and Australia could say to the world "surrender or starve" and they would have no choice. At present the situation has not changed Canada as well as Australia can provide the world with wheat, otherwise it is the United States which makes possible everything else.

If all foreigners must leave and plainly the US troops were same. Then it is clear that NK was not prepared to fight for China's troops to stay in NK, meaning they did not really want them there. China was responsible for making NK a reality and remaining there was really not what NK wanted. Otherwise they would have continued hostilities to make it possible.

I agree that China is a factor in all this mess both in relation to North Korea and Iraq. But China bases the ability to react aggressively to the US is relation to one technology. That technology is not longer valid and in fact cannot be used against US interests.

The World cannot survive soley of wheat

posted on Dec, 31 2002 @ 01:49 PM
A War On Two Fronts?

I agree with Toltec (and as I stated in my earlier post) the immediate issue with N. Korea is "a benifits package"as Toltec identified it. They (N.Korea) are desperately poor, it has been stated that 20-25% of their children are chronically
malnourished, watch the news films from their country, the people are thin, deathly thin. N. Korea is literally starving. The N.Korean government sees to it that what ever food there is, is shared, but make no misteak, that country is in very bad shape.

And I do also agree as has been stated by several of the Members who have posted regarding the matter, Food (Food; Wheat, Corn, Soybeans, Edible Oils, Meat, Etc.) can and should be the "lever" used by the U.S., Canada, Australia-New Zealand to balance the Oil Cartel and as a barter item in agreements between Countries.

Theodore L. Gieseking (USAFSS-SP)

posted on Dec, 31 2002 @ 06:22 PM
@toltec do u have a link for the report??

posted on Dec, 31 2002 @ 08:44 PM
Sorry f16 did severla searches but was unable to find a link which discussed it. From the context of our current situation though let me elaborate. Due to the Chernobil incident Russia's farm belt was adversly affected. Forests in Africa and South America must remain intact due to our requirements for Oxygen. Europe is a concrete jungle and relies on the United States for a considerable percentage of consumables. The Arab Nations are located in deserts and Chinas populations of 1 billion. Exceed the one-acre person requirements for sustenence per year by a long shot. A large percentage of Australian land is desert and in relation to Canada the winters are very harsh. Nonetheless condition in those countries do allow for the growth of vast amounts of wheat.

The attached link is a comprehenisive assesement of the current world situation prepared by the CIA. This in relation to many factors.

Hope that helps

CIA- The World factbook

posted on Dec, 31 2002 @ 09:24 PM
Not just wheat, but lamb, cattle, fruit in huge quantities.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in