Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Zackback]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_clash;_ylt=At7efJUvGkQ7ijljT7Rw3kes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNmN2hkb2FuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMjAzL2FzX2tvcmVhc19jbGFzaARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzUEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3Nrb3JlYWRlZmVucw

Reminds me of a cartoon. I think it was Bigs Bunny where a line was drawn in the sand and the other character kept crossing it anyway not caring at all about the (meaningless) threats of retaliation.

[comm]

[tfunk]

[Zackback]

It is very odd to allow your own citizens to be attacked killed and do nothing about it. By nothing I mean strike back militarily. Some might say that it wouldn't be "worth it" since it is just a few people but how many people should SK allow to be killed? Should there be a certain quota each month? each year? 1? 10? 100? etc?

[eamo]

It's not odd at all to allow 4 people to die without escalating to very possible war.......it's very sensible if you are South Korean.

A lot of the, South-Korea-are-wimps-for-not-hitting-back, people are forgetting two things.....
1. South Korea did hit back!!! We just don't know what damage was done by the SK artillery.
2. A war with NK would be a brutal and devastating disaster which would cause death and misery for millions and set SK back decades.


I can't fathom the casual attitude from some who think SK needs to hit NK hard and get tough.......do you want a war??

[Zackback]

You didn't answer this:
How many people should SK allow to be killed? Should there be a certain quota each month? each year? 1? 10? 100? etc?

Do I want a war? No, but they, the North Koreans, do - and have in fact have violated the armistice.
The SK military response? Minimal...and throw in "hey don't do that again because NEXT time we aren't going to take it anymore. Remember, we are serious THIS time. OK? Don't forget. Right? Right?"

[eamo]

You could look at it this way.......The two Koreas are still technically at war. It has been a 'hot' border since the end of the Korean War. A few deaths here and there can be expected because two very twitchy and aggressive military's have been facing each other for over 50 years.

There have been casualties on both sides since the war.

As a matter of fact, the new SK defence minister has just "promised" air strikes if NK attack again.

[Zackback]

And do you believe this "promise" (this time)?

[Jake_Kim]

All ROK Forces are mandated to follow United Nations Command Rules of Engagement, the current version of which puts emphasis on preventing the escalation of conflict.
The ROE dictates that return fire must be of identical type and impact, small-arms fire for small-arms fire, artillery for artillery. SK has F-15s with SLAM-ER missiles that were actually deployed on the day of bombardment, but launching those air-to-ground missiles to hit NK battery is outside of current ROE, hence requiring authorization from GEN Walter Sharp, Commander of UNC, not from the President of SK.
What the new Defense Minister-nominee is saying is either a wishful thinking or based on an assumption that the UNC will agree to the amendment of ROE in a more 'aggressive' manner. Without such an amendment, SK can't simply start bombing Kim Jong-il's Palace even if NK provokes similarly on the mainland with, say, 10 shells hurting or killing a dozen, yet short of a battle or war.
ROK Forces' chain of command has f-ed up many things before and during this incident, but retaliation is not as simple as it sounds even if SK were no wuss.

[Globutron]

The new anthem for SK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGBhQbmPwH8

Better than the Clich� V-I cadences that every other anthem in the world consists of and nothing more.

[northway]

I don't see what the ROK has to gain from striking back outside of salving some wounded pride.