Rumsfeld wants to move troops out of S. Korea!

[The Mad Monk]

Found it:

Air challenge raises Korean tension
March 5 2003
By Hamish McDonald
Beijing
Marian Wilkinson
Washington





North Korea has dramatically increased the chances of a clash with the United States after it sent fighter aircraft to intercept a US spy plane in international air space near its coast.

The interception of the four-engined RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft over the Sea of Japan on Sunday indicates the fears the Pyongyang regime has that the US might be considering a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities.

Sunday's incident came as US President George Bush gave a new warning of military options if diplomacy failed to resolve the issue of nuclear capability on the Korean peninsula.

North Korea recently restarted a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon a move that has dismayed Seoul and been interpreted by the US as deliberately provocative.

On Sunday, two MiG-29 jets and two older MiG-23s closed on the slower US plane, a derivative of the Boeing 707 commercial airliner, about 240 kilometres off the North Korean coast.


The North Korean fighters followed it for about 20 minutes, coming as close as 15 metres.

"The fighters were armed and during the interception the North Korean fighters did acquire the US aircraft on their radar," a spokeswoman for US Pacific Command in Hawaii said.

It is not clear whether the North Korean aircraft used radar as part of a missile guidance system and to lock on to the US aircraft as a target.

US officials said it was the first known such interception involving North Korean and US aircraft since North Korea shot down an American reconnaissance plane in international airspace in 1969, killing 31 people.

The RC-135 involved was packed with electronic equipment that can track activity hundreds of kilometres away.

US officials said the flight was routine and the aircraft had returned to its base at Kadena, in Japan's Okinawa islands.

They also said reconnaissance missions by the RC-135s would continue with American fighter escorts, further straining relations.

An increasingly nervous Japan reacted to the incident by urging North Korea to pull back from its acts of provocation.

"Is it part of North Korea's brinkmanship? I do not wish them to take provocative action," Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said.

Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba said the interception was extraordinary, but maintained it did not threaten Japan's peace and stability.

Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatsuhisa Takashima said: "Japan is always available and willing to resume normalisation talks between North Korea and Japan, and also the security dialogue between our two countries . We are waiting for a positive reply from Pyongyang."

US intelligence agencies say that North Korea, having restarted the reactor, is now preparing to reactivate a plutonium extraction plant that would enable it to produce a nuclear bomb.

The reactivation of the plant would cross a red line clearly marked in recent statements by US leaders, and there would be strong arguments in Washington in favour of a strike to put it out of action before spent fuel is transferred into it.

- with Shane Green

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...540187327.html

[The Mad Monk]

I hadn't heard about the 1969 incident, until this one came up. Then there was the incident in the DMZ with the tree and the ax handle...and other incidents, too...

Could China turn around for, say, ten minutes or so? Please?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

so sick and fvcking tired of people thinking that the skoreans are either a) unthankful, b) idiots, or c) both.
so you see a few thousand fvcking protesters on your telly screen who don't like the us. big deal.

Chill down. I'm also tired of Hundreds of Thousands of ignorant SKers going on a parade chanting how great NK is and how the US should fvck off.

[Q Classic]

Chill down. I'm also tired of Hundreds of Thousands of ignorant SKers going on a parade chanting how great NK is and how the US should fvck off.

sick and tired of them too.

but it seems like that's all you non-korean amis think the skoreans are, and it's frustrating. almost on the level of that entire dog-eating bidness.

[MRT144]

Q, isnt that the philipines?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

sick and tired of them too.

but it seems like that's all you non-korean amis think the skoreans are, and it's frustrating. almost on the level of that entire dog-eating bidness.

The question is: are they the majority?

[DanS]

Q^3: I think it's hard to avoid the fact that the SK has a large generation gap, and the US is not held in high esteem among the majority of young people.

With their missile technology, and the stability of their leadership, there's no way in hell we can "accept" a nuclear armed DPRK.

OK, then what are we going to do about it?

[Q Classic]

i honestly don't know if they are the majority. I do not doubt that the majority of koreans would like a more equal partnership, one in which the 600k strong korean standing army were not under the direct command of an american general, rather than a korean one; and i do not doubt that the majority of koreans would also like to feel somewhat more respected than how they feel by americans.

i believe that is the majority of the problem here, between the sk and the us. the us, to them, does not appear to realize that korea is no longer a beggar state, and would like to be accorded the same amount of respect that an equal partner receives: among their top concerns are relatively small things, such as trying american soldiers who commit crimes in korean courts, the aforementioned military situation, and moving the american army hq outside of seoul's prime real estate area.

that last one is a bit tricky. as far as i understand it, the us army has been looking for years now, but has been unable to find another ideal spot. so~

that's where things stand. the us has to appear as if it wants to patch things up with skorea, and to the vast majority of the younger skoreans, the us doesn't look that interested in doing that.

[DanS]

Honestly, Q^3. To hear you tell it, it sounds as though any subordination indicates that South Korea is a beggar state or just a lackey. All allied command has an American at the top. This is true even when kick-ass countries like the UK are involved.

SKers might compare the 600K troops versus our 35K troops and wonder where the equity in that is. But that is ignoring the much larger standing army that is to be brought in if the fighting starts.

You know, if you are looking for slights, you will find them. If they aren't there, you can easily imagine them. It's human nature. But in the end, the cooler heads must prevail.

[The Mad Monk]

DanS, are we actually talking about an 'allied command' here? We have troops stationed in Japan as well -- is there also an American heading the Japanese military?

[DanS]

I don't know the specifics of Japan, or SK for that matter. I'm going on Q^3's representations.

[raghar]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/na...mar2003-13.htm

page not found.

"The air is dense like before the storm. When storm would begin air will be cleaner, just cities would be razed to ground. "

[The Mad Monk]

Now that's just damn strange -- did they pull the story, or just relocate it?

[Q Classic]

Honestly, Q^3. To hear you tell it, it sounds as though any subordination indicates that South Korea is a beggar state or just a lackey. All allied command has an American at the top. This is true even when kick-ass countries like the UK are involved.
SKers might compare the 600K troops versus our 35K troops and wonder where the equity in that is. But that is ignoring the much larger standing army that is to be brought in if the fighting starts.
You know, if you are looking for slights, you will find them. If they aren't there, you can easily imagine them. It's human nature. But in the end, the cooler heads must prevail.

dan, nowhere do i say that i personally believe all of it. i was under the assumption that you wanted to know what the majority of skoreans felt, and as far as i can tell, that's how it appears to them.
you have to realize, korea hasn't had a happy history in any way. much of their history has dealt with trying to play off greater powers against each other while struggling to hold onto their identity. now with their economy being rather strong, their pride bolstered by the world cup, among other things, skorea's getting a bit uppity, so to speak.
for the past century or so, they've really known little else other than begging or being propped up by the us.
they don't want to feel like beggars or lackeys anymore.
now, ascribing all of those views to me is kinda odd, since i'm very much an american. born and raised here, with only my parents and irregular visits there along with my reading news from korea as the attachments to korea.

you're right, if you're looking for slights, you'll find them. if you're not looking for them at all, they can also easily pass you by. it's human nature. you only see what you want to see.

right now, the skoreans want to feel somewhat powerful. they want to feel more responsible. and so they don't want to feel like they depend on the us as much as they do. that's why the troop command is such an irritant, especially when portrayed in movies like the most recent james bond, where a mid-level british intelligence operative ordered the mobilization of the skorean army... with no skoreans even in the room. that's what it's all about. and honestly, i think the us could go a long way to developing stronger relations with skorea if they took this feeling into account and tried to work with it, rather than ignoring it as they've been doing for the past several years.

[DanS]

I didn't mean you in a personal way. I meant you as the everyman Korean on the street. That was the role you were playing, right?

And I agree that the US should do what it takes to assuage SK on this stuff. In my view, it's cheap and doesn't hurt anything.

But SKers need to get off the inferiority complex. They're now a first world country, for chrissakes!

[DarthVeda]

Yes. If nothing happens, ok. But if the North invades the south, it just goes to show you we were right all along...

But if the North does invade, and the U.S. isn't there, the South is probably screwed. That will teach those StarCraft monkies a lesson...

[Zero]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
Yes. If nothing happens, ok. But if the North invades the south, it just goes to show you we were right all along...

But if the North does invade, and the U.S. isn't there, the South is probably screwed. That will teach those StarCraft monkies a lesson...

Then I might have a chance to be a finalist in ladder games...

Who am I kidding I washed my hands off that game aeons ago...

[DarthVeda]

I'm pretty sure they ALL still play it

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Felch X
UR, you're so full of ****, your eyes are brown.

Pathetic. How much people has the US killed so far by sanctions?

[Oerdin]

UR: That is an appallingly ignorant statement. The U.N.'s oil for food deal provides plenty of food and medicine to the Iraqi government but some how that food & medicine never makes it to the Iraqi people. Interestingly enough the Kurdish controlled areas are under the same sanctions but there are no shortages of food or medicine. Why?

Could it be that the Iraqi government has something to do with it? Hmmm, like maybe Saddam's not distributing all the supplies he receives? Of course examining the facts has never been one of your strong points; you much prefer to be jingoistic and continually repeat the same tired old lies which has been shot down a hundred times before.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
With their missile technology, and the stability of their leadership, there's no way in hell we can "accept" a nuclear armed DPRK.

Haven´t they been, over the past few decades, a paragon of stability? Unlike, say, the US?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Haven´t they been, over the past few decades, a paragon of stability? Unlike, say, the US?

CT: They have been if you ignore the kidnappings, the military incursions into SK & Japan, the famine, the massive flow of refugees into China, etc...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Oerdin

CT: They have been if you ignore the kidnappings, ...

I have read about a dozen or so kidnappings. However, I have also read they treated those people well, and they later did apologize.

Now compare that to the hundreds of kidnap victims held like animals at Guantanamo...

[Oerdin]

Kidnape victims in Cuba?

Treated like animals?

Even the Red Cross says they are treated in accordance to the Geneva convention. I guess CT has his own "special" definitions which he uses...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Even the Red Cross says they are treated in accordance to the Geneva convention.

Quote?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Shi - the ability of the DPRK army to "win" isn't the point. Dear Leader Kim doesn't think the way the rest of us do, and any future involving peaceful reunification doesn't do much for him.

He has nothing to bargain for, except blackmail, and nothing to bargain with, except playing a game of chicken.

At one point just prior to the breakup of the USSR, the DPRK had more artillery on the DMZ than the entire combined artillery pieces of the US and USSR. They've got a lot less of that serviceable now, but it was ridiculous overkill before, and it's still overkill now.

Unlike the original Korean war, when we started finding ourselves in MiG-15 on P-51 fights and had to ramp up technologically, the DPRK air forces aren't even slightly comparable in quality to the US/RoK air forces. However, they now have ballistic missiles to make up for some of that.

From the DMZ south is the most securely defended real estate in the world, by far, with mine fields, the ability to trigger landslides to block the roads, and a network of forward firebases, but how well that will work in practice is up for grabs - most of the minefields can be sympathetically detonated by artillery saturation, and one of the main goals of DPRK sapper teams would be to take out the roadblock defenses.

In all likelihood, the forward defenses would hold, barely, and create a deathtrap for DPRK armor and mechanized forces, but the US-RoK military casualties north of Seoul would be tremendous - 50-100%. Civilian loss of life and damage to Seoul could be extreme as well, as a lot of DPRK rocket artillery can reach Seoul from their dug in positions in the DMZ.

From our side, "winning" could still be devastating. Some 1980's studies (and there's nothing to indicate that anything's changed in terms of the physical reality of geology and ordnance) by the DoD concluded that nothing short of multiple tactical nukes across the DPRK side of the DMZ could take out the most heavily dug in artillery that could threaten Seoul.

If Kim and the DPRK leadership thought the way we do, and had the same goals, then such a move would be insane. They don't think the way we do, because there really is no future for any of them, and backing down without concessions from the US would be devastating - once the Dear Leader backs down, he's got nothing left to bargain with. If he realizes he has no room to maneuver, and no chance of his regime surviving, then what? And how much are you, or anyone, willing to gamble on his thought processes?

[Q Classic]

Haven´t they been, over the past few decades, a paragon of stability? Unlike, say, the US?

a) nkorea never apologized for the kidnapping and holding of a korean filmmaker and his wife.
b) many of the kidnapped japanese died under mysterious circumstances.
c) all of the kidnapped victims were forbidden to leave nkorea and were forced to work for the party: the japanese were forced to teach nkorean agents on how to impersonate a japanese person; the korean filmmaker was forced to create a film industry.
d) there have been numerous incursions into south korea using submarines and spies. most have been caught, or sunk, still creating much acrimony.
e) there are numerous incidents of nkoreans digging tunnels under the DMZ, with skorea having to collapse such tunnels.
f) an incident in the 70s, i believe, when american/skorean troops cutting down a tree on the skorean side were fired upon by nkoreans, resulting in the death of a few allied soldiers.
g) a recent naval confrontation which resulted in the loss of a korean naval ship and the loss of a korean naval crewman.
h) they have also conducted multiple terrorist bombings involving south korea: one which killed much of the park chung hee's cabinet in burma, and another which caused the destruction of a korean air jumbo jet --and the deaths of all on board.
i) the pueblo.
j) the famine.
k) the missile launch over japan a few years back.

comrade tribune, where have you been?

[The Mad Monk]

f) was a little more personal than that. No guns were involved.

The North Koreans beat the trimmers to death with axe handles.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

comrade tribune, where have you been?

He is a crazy and hyprocrital commie who hates everything the captialism stands for, but refuses to live in a true 'Worker's Paradise' like North Korea.

[MichaeltheGreat]

DanS and Q^3:

The point about command structure is a good one - now is a lot different from the days of "Whitey" Paik, when the RoK army had limited staff capability and a very limited senior officer corps.

Keeping X Corps and 8th Army command structures in place for US forces is one thing, but at this point, even commitment of the entire US Army and USMC to the Korean theater (which would never happen, and be a logistical impossibility in any realistic war timeframe) would leave the US forces as the smaller force.

We've had RoK officers through the (US) Army's Command and General Staff College, the Army War College, etc., and we've helped set up their own training and advanced educational facilities.

Although RoK troops are directly under RoK commanders (up to their Army Chief of Staff level), and US troops under US commanders (up to 8th Army level), having the joint allied command always under a US commander is outmoded, and is patronizing. At the least, a rotating allied command should be introduced, with the allied commander approved by both countries. Eventualy, after a few rotations of command, the joint command in theater should pass over to the RoK - it's their peninsula, and the professionalism and competence, as well as tight coordination of procedures, doctrine and plans, means that they are on at least an equal footing with the US commanders that get rotated in.