Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
68 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If North Korea Declares An All Out War On South .... (Original Post) global1 Aug 2015 OP
In a New York minute (eom) HassleCat Aug 2015 #1
...but they won't brooklynite Aug 2015 #2
The yearly mutual threats keep the fear level up...good for controlling both populations. Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #19
Ummm, we might not have s choice... NeoGreen Aug 2015 #3
No you haven't GP6971 Aug 2015 #5
I thought so, but since I haven't been back... NeoGreen Aug 2015 #9
Forgotten War. So true GP6971 Aug 2015 #15
USAF... NeoGreen Aug 2015 #18
Son Tan shopping!! GP6971 Aug 2015 #22
o..m..g... NeoGreen Aug 2015 #34
the Viking Club... NeoGreen Aug 2015 #36
Plus Korean bands trying to sing GP6971 Aug 2015 #42
About as bad as the Vietnamese trying to emulate American rock bands. GGJohn Aug 2015 #43
Didn't hit Vietnam, GP6971 Aug 2015 #44
Yep. GGJohn Aug 2015 #45
I heard that In Korea in the 60s and 70s GP6971 Aug 2015 #46
LOL!! GGJohn Aug 2015 #47
I preferred OB GP6971 Aug 2015 #41
Of course GP6971 Aug 2015 #4
Yes. We have 35,000 troops there which IS the ROK defense plan jberryhill Aug 2015 #6
Slight correction GP6971 Aug 2015 #8
Actually it is down to 28,500 troops in Korea. davidpdx Aug 2015 #53
We have troops just south of the demilitarized zone. If the North invades the south we are stevenleser Aug 2015 #7
A 2nd Disvision Combat Brigade Team and 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry GP6971 Aug 2015 #12
Not sure but I think the Chinese would hifiguy Aug 2015 #10
Especially considering their trade with the South. GGJohn Aug 2015 #23
Nope. Big-time trade with China hifiguy Aug 2015 #30
Brilliantly riotous: Kim Jong Cartman! (n/m) PJMcK Aug 2015 #62
They won't. Gman Aug 2015 #11
Yes, we go all in. GOLGO 13 Aug 2015 #13
South Korea has nukes AngryAmish Aug 2015 #16
So will Seoul if it comes to that GP6971 Aug 2015 #27
Any idea what kind of counterbattery capability the ROK / US has? MicaelS Aug 2015 #50
No they don't. GP6971 Aug 2015 #32
No, South Korea does not have nukes davidpdx Aug 2015 #54
We already are involved, GGJohn Aug 2015 #14
THIS! yuiyoshida Aug 2015 #60
Sadly, we will. Lancero Aug 2015 #17
That's bullshit. GGJohn Aug 2015 #20
Considering that the US decided to say fuck it to paragraph 13d of the Armistice? Lancero Aug 2015 #25
Do you have a link? GP6971 Aug 2015 #29
Edited this into the post a bit ago Lancero Aug 2015 #35
Thanks! GP6971 Aug 2015 #38
To expand on this a bit... Lancero Aug 2015 #51
Thanks!! GP6971 Aug 2015 #52
China would invade long before we would. onehandle Aug 2015 #21
I couldn't agree more. eom. GGJohn Aug 2015 #24
I think that's the case as well. joshcryer Aug 2015 #56
I don't think that's why China keeps NK afloat Nevernose Aug 2015 #63
I sure as hell hope so. mathematic Aug 2015 #26
We have been at war with NK since 1950. roamer65 Aug 2015 #28
No China will not egg them on GP6971 Aug 2015 #31
Exactly. SK's trade with China is hifiguy Aug 2015 #33
Not only with SK GP6971 Aug 2015 #37
Jeremy Corbyn Jeneral2885 Aug 2015 #39
OK, Who is this person? GP6971 Aug 2015 #40
We are already involved Marrah_G Aug 2015 #48
In a little under 4 hours GP6971 Aug 2015 #49
North Korea backed down, as usual. joshcryer Aug 2015 #55
of course we would DrDan Aug 2015 #57
First of all, it is unlikely to happen davidpdx Aug 2015 #58
Technically we are still in state of war. A peace treaty was never signed. davidn3600 Aug 2015 #59
The US had already broken the armstice back in 56... Lancero Aug 2015 #66
Probably more blackmail eridani Aug 2015 #61
Say one thing about the Kims. hifiguy Aug 2015 #64
I've never seen it this tense... SidDithers Aug 2015 #65
Could go hot any day now... Brickbat Aug 2015 #68
Explosion at US military storage depot in Japan Ex Lurker Aug 2015 #67

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)
3. Ummm, we might not have s choice...
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:02 PM
Aug 2015

...since we have had "troops" on the ground and in country since the 50's.

Unless I missed some major redeployment in the last 20 years.

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)
9. I thought so, but since I haven't been back...
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:10 PM
Aug 2015

...for a 2nd tour after 1987, my "intel" is a bit dated.

I guess it is still the forgotten war.

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
15. Forgotten War. So true
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:14 PM
Aug 2015

Where were you in 87? I was always on extended TDY and based out Of Camp Humphries.

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)
18. USAF...
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:18 PM
Aug 2015

...554 CESHR, Red Horse
Combat Engineers at Osan
all of 87, Jan 87 to Jan 88
many good memories

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)
34. o..m..g...
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:54 PM
Aug 2015

...I forgot about the dumplings....
after a late night of drinking oversize Crowns
buying a greasy bag on the walk back to the dorm....



now i have to break out the photos

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)
36. the Viking Club...
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:57 PM
Aug 2015

...with their 9 tv screens playing mtv videos...

...Paul Simon, "You can call me Al!"

....memories

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
42. Plus Korean bands trying to sing
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:24 PM
Aug 2015

American rock and roll. Painful at times. I travel to Korea often and they are actually very good now.

And the shared bowl drinks at the clubs....can't remember the name though.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
45. Yep.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:33 PM
Aug 2015

After 2 tours in Vietnam, I came home for a year, then was deployed to S. Korea in 71, and the Korean bands trying to copy American rock and roll was just as bad as in Vietnam.

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
46. I heard that In Korea in the 60s and 70s
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:38 PM
Aug 2015

that the slicky boys stole the radios while you were listening to it. LOL!

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
47. LOL!!
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:46 PM
Aug 2015

Yep, all you had to do was blink your eyes, and poof, your shit was long gone, same in Vietnam.

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
41. I preferred OB
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:20 PM
Aug 2015

But I thought Crown and OB were poor, with OB just over Crown.

Today, there is Cass which is really good.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
6. Yes. We have 35,000 troops there which IS the ROK defense plan
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:06 PM
Aug 2015

In the event of war, command of the military of the ROK goes directly to the US.

There are transitional plans to phase that out over time, but it's been that way a long time.

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
8. Slight correction
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:09 PM
Aug 2015

ROK and US forces have been commanded by the USA. Plans have been in the works to turn command over to the ROKs, but like anything else, it keeps getting delayed.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
7. We have troops just south of the demilitarized zone. If the North invades the south we are
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:08 PM
Aug 2015

automatically involved.

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
12. A 2nd Disvision Combat Brigade Team and 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:12 PM
Aug 2015

Plus artillery and aid defense units based out of Camps Casy and Hovey

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
10. Not sure but I think the Chinese would
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:10 PM
Aug 2015

Last edited Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)

cut Kim Jong Cartman off at the knees so fast it would make the world's collective head spin. The Chinese want stability, not war, even with their current economic ups and downs.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
23. Especially considering their trade with the South.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:26 PM
Aug 2015

They don't want that interrupted and the whole region thrown into turmoil because of a megalomaniac.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
30. Nope. Big-time trade with China
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:47 PM
Aug 2015

is an excellent insurance policy from the South Korean viewpoint. And a very sound judgement.

GOLGO 13

(1,681 posts)
13. Yes, we go all in.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:12 PM
Aug 2015

We have US military bases in SK. They attack her then they've attacked us. China better yank the leash on their little psycho.

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
27. So will Seoul if it comes to that
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:35 PM
Aug 2015

North Korea has over 7,000 tubes (artillery, rockets) that can hit Seoul. They only need about 30 minutes to cause havoc in Seoul.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
50. Any idea what kind of counterbattery capability the ROK / US has?
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:53 PM
Aug 2015

And what percentage of the NK are HARTS?

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
14. We already are involved,
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:14 PM
Aug 2015

we have 30,000+ troops stationed there, including on the DMZ.
In the event of an all out invasion by the Norks, you can bet the farm that massive US assets would be deployed against the Norks with devastating results.

When I was stationed in S. Korea as an attack helo pilot, we were frequently on high alert for any Nork aggression, it was tense as hell, a lot of simulated combat sorties.

Lancero

(3,003 posts)
17. Sadly, we will.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:15 PM
Aug 2015

It's wishful thinking that we'd be smart enough to pull our people back from SK before SHTF, but the MIC wants them there in the off-chance that NK does start a war since that'd be justification for us to enter.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
20. That's bullshit.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:22 PM
Aug 2015

We've had a mutual defense treaty with them since the 50's.
What? You think we should just cut and run and abandon our ally in the face of Nork aggression?

Lancero

(3,003 posts)
25. Considering that the US decided to say fuck it to paragraph 13d of the Armistice?
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:30 PM
Aug 2015

Which, btw, means that we technically broke the armistice?

Someone profited off of this, I guarantee it.

We broke the agreement because we had 'intel' that said someone's been giving N. Korea new weapons, though we couldn't actually point out specifics. Hey, guess what other war we got into as a result of 'intel' saying a nation had weapons that it actually didn't?

A intresting article on the subject - http://journal-neo.org/2013/06/10/the-korean-war-and-the-peace-treaty-issue/

Lancero

(3,003 posts)
35. Edited this into the post a bit ago
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:56 PM
Aug 2015
http://journal-neo.org/2013/06/10/the-korean-war-and-the-peace-treaty-issue/

For a quick look, here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement#United_States_abrogation_of_paragraph_13.28d.29

For a more longer look, this - http://www.japanfocus.org/-Lee-Jae_Bong/3053/article.html

The Pentagon claimed that North Korea had introduced by early 1956 some 450 fighter planes into North Korea, of which over 250 were jet aircraft, and that it was a matter of urgency to replace obsolete weapons and equipment used by the U.S.F.K. and South Korean forces. They proposed two ways to introduce new weapons, including nuclear and other materiel into South Korea. One was the temporary suspension of the armistice agreement, and the other was the reinterpretation of paragraph 13(d) of the agreement. The UNC also iterated the need to replace obsolete weapons in South Korea through a more 'flexible' interpretation of the relevant clause.

...Although the Pentagon acknowledged that evidence to back up raw intelligence reports on the physical existence of nuclear weapons or its delivery systems in North Korea did not exist, it contended that new weapons and equipment had been introduced after the ceasefire and that it might not be long before delivery systems for nuclear weapons entered the communist nation.

Nevertheless, at a June 1956 meeting of the Military Armistice Commission at Panmunjom, the U.S.F.K. and UNC issued a statement detailing 'alleged' North Korean violations of paragraph 13(d) of the armistice agreement and indicating that the UNC would no longer consider itself bound by that paragraph until such time as the relative military balance has been restored and North Korea has demonstrated its willingness to comply with the terms of the armistice. On the heels of the expulsion of the NNSC inspection teams in June 1956, the U.S. had abrogated the very clause that prevented it from deploying nuclear weapons in South Korea.


The NNSC was the group meant to monitor both sides to ensure no new weapons were introduced. The UNC alledged that NK had new weapons and pretty much forced out their monitor teams, telling them to go and look into N. Korea harder because they are hiding new toys somewhere. Well, guess what we did right after that?

Yep. Christmas time, new toys!

The NNSC later pulled out of NK since they were not allowed back in to monitor SK, realizing that the only reason they weren't let back in was because one side was playing dirty - Since one side had no intention of staying to the agreements, they felt no need to hold the other side to them pretty much.

As for the 'They had new weapons in in early 1956..." comment, well...

The U.S. Department of Defense began weighing the option of deploying atomic weapons in South Korea around January 1956 at the latest. In a joint meeting of State and Defense Department officials on January 6, 1956, Maxwell Taylor, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, said that new tanks and new types of artillery would be introduced into Korea if it were not for paragraph 13(d) of the armistice agreement, and in particular, mentioned the possibility of introducing Honest John missiles that could be mounted with atomic cannons and nuclear weapons. Also, the Commander-in-Chief of the UNC (CINCUNC) Lyman Lemnitzer sent a telegram dated January 30, 1956 to the Department of the Army in which he suggested that it was highly desirable for the U.S.F.K. to possess weapons with atomic delivery capability in order to alleviate the imbalance of strength between the opposing forces in Korea.


We were trying to get new weapons in at the same time, or even before.

Combine this with the unproven allegations made against NK, that we used to justify ignoring the armstice, well... If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...

Lancero

(3,003 posts)
51. To expand on this a bit...
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:54 PM
Aug 2015

The US was worried about them getting new hardware, replacement's were a secondary concern - Though, under the agreement replacements would have been allowed.

The only craft that entered operation around that timeframe was the Mig-17 - In 1952, though they were in such limited numbers that they never played a part.

The second aircraft entering operation around then was the Shenyang J-5, a Chinese knockoff of the Mig-17, and it entered service in July 1956, which was after the date the US said that NK supposedly recieved 'new jets'.

It's entirely possible that the 'new jets' (And speaking of the allegations lacking specifics, notice how they never gave a model number?) N. Korea recieved were Mig-15's, the US's reasoning for putting new weapons into SK was to ensure that the current hardware they had wouldn't be rendered obsolete. So given the timing, the Mig-15 is the most likely jet for N. Korea to have received if they actually received hardware in violation of the armistice. But here's the funniest thing about that - Even if N. Korea violated the armstice and recieved a new shipment of Mig-15's, it wouldn't have done ANYTHING to render our current hardware in S. Korea as obsolete - We had F-86's in SK at that time, and they played apart in the Korean war fighting against the Mig-15s and they kicked the absolute shit out of them. Seriously, kill ratio pushed at the time? 792 Mig-15 kills to 78 F-86 losses. Many people have since revised the kill numbers, but at this time period we were running with 792 to 78, which was a drastic count to our favor.

So, even if NK did violate the agreement, our entire reasoning behind introducing nuclear weapons was completely bogus.

Still though, if that agreement was violated and we had proof of it we would have shown it. But we never had anything to show, just allegations that they recieved new weapons.

...Come to think of it, didn't we make some other allegations - unproven and later shown to be false - relating to weapons in a more recent war?

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
21. China would invade long before we would.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:22 PM
Aug 2015

It's China's fault we are even involved. They keep NK alive to cost us billions.

But if it actually came to war, China would cut them off at the ankles.

joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
56. I think that's the case as well.
Sat Aug 22, 2015, 04:55 AM
Aug 2015

If anything happens China takes over NK and makes it a client state (while it sort of is now they don't have control over the government). They need that buffer between South Korea and China's borders. The whole Iron Curtain concept (which itself is an odious concept to be sure). The US would get involved in so much as to keep the original border lines in place.

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
63. I don't think that's why China keeps NK afloat
Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:09 AM
Aug 2015

It costs us billions to stay in South Korea, but I think China is A) already sick of North Korean refugees (they're treated like illegal immigrants because China doesn't want ANYBODY moving there on a permanent basis), B) has no idea what to do with the 25 million people living in that resource-poor shithole of a country, and C) keeps involving themselves in NK more out of a sense of obligation than anything else. China is perfectly aware that Mao and Stalin created that regime and I think the Chinese are willing to "own" their part of the responsibility.

roamer65

(36,745 posts)
28. We have been at war with NK since 1950.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:37 PM
Aug 2015

No peace treaty was ever signed, so it would just go from a "cold" war to a "hot" one.

The Chinese are the wildcard in it. Will they egg NK to reignite the conflict or whack them down hard?

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
31. No China will not egg them on
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:48 PM
Aug 2015

If anything, they try to restrain them. They have too much to lose economically.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
33. Exactly. SK's trade with China is
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 10:53 PM
Aug 2015

their insurance policy. The Chinese think the Kims are just as batshit as the rest of the world.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
48. We are already involved
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:46 PM
Aug 2015

Technically we are still at war with NK. We also have treaties with Sk and Japan that must be honored. We are obligated to come to their defense.

GP6971

(31,146 posts)
49. In a little under 4 hours
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 11:48 PM
Aug 2015

we'll know.

Me personally, NK will fire some artillery and rockets at the South's loudspeakers, the south will retaliate and we'll be bak to normal.

joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
55. North Korea backed down, as usual.
Sat Aug 22, 2015, 04:53 AM
Aug 2015

South Korea has to yet again put up with their threats. The international community pays the extortion threat off with food and aid. Rinse and repeat.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
58. First of all, it is unlikely to happen
Sat Aug 22, 2015, 04:57 AM
Aug 2015

Tensions between the two nations rise from time to time and make it look worse than it actually is.

Second, I want to clear up some misstatements that were made in the thread:

1) The US has 28,500 troops

2) North Korea DOES NOT have nuclear weapons

3) The US still has command and control (as was mentioned down thread by GP6971) and that it had been in the works to turn over command and control to South Korea, but they have repeatedly asked to postpone it.

Source: I live in South Korea and am 26 km from the DMZ.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
59. Technically we are still in state of war. A peace treaty was never signed.
Sat Aug 22, 2015, 05:16 AM
Aug 2015

The Korean War never officially ended. It's only a cease-fire in place.

And it won't end anytime soon...at least not until the Kim family is gone. The North has an obsession in believing the South belongs to them and the government is only being propped up by the US. They are not going to agree to any peace treaty that allows the South to remain intact.

And that's why we are at an impasse.

If the North does try to invade the South, they are in violation of the cease-fire and we are in war again.

Lancero

(3,003 posts)
66. The US had already broken the armstice back in 56...
Sun Aug 23, 2015, 12:09 PM
Aug 2015

When they expelled the NNSC inspectors from SK.

A lot of things will have to happen before this ends, but it's going to have to involve more then just the removal of the Kim family. The US - if we really do desire peace - is going to have to own up for what it did in the past.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
64. Say one thing about the Kims.
Sat Aug 22, 2015, 11:46 AM
Aug 2015

Reducing a country of 25 million Koreans to a state of abject, grinding permanent poverty, deprivation and starvation is a genuine accomplishment of some kind that borders on the impossible. Notable but not a good one.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
65. I've never seen it this tense...
Sat Aug 22, 2015, 11:48 AM
Aug 2015

It has a real Guns of August feel to it. A sneeze could set the whole thing off.

And I know what I'm talking about. I've watched the trends and have studied the history.

Sid

Ex Lurker

(3,813 posts)
67. Explosion at US military storage depot in Japan
Sun Aug 23, 2015, 12:34 PM
Aug 2015

Maybe a coincidental accident, but I would note that there are a lot of NK agents in Japan. Mobsters affiliated with the North control the pachinko parlors, which are a significant source of hard currency for them.


@kozenipon 6m6 minutes ago

The U.S. military facility in Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan has an explosion.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If North Korea Declares A...