|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ajosshi
Joined: 17 Jan 2011 Location: ajosshi.com
|
Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:09 pm Post subject: U.S. deploys warship off SK |
|
|
U.S. deploys warship off South Korea amid soaring tensions on peninsula
SEOUL (Reuters) - The United States has positioned a warship off the Korean coast as a shield against ballistic missile attack as South Korea's new president vowed swift retaliation against a North Korean strike amid soaring tensions on the peninsula.
But Washington also said it had seen no worrisome mobilization of armed forces by the North Koreans despite bellicose rhetoric over a ramping up of international sanctions against Pyongyang over nuclear weapons tests.
"If there is any provocation against South Korea and its people, there should be a strong response in initial combat without any political considerations," South Korean President Park Geun-hye told the defense minister and senior officials.
North Korea says the region is on the brink of a nuclear war in the wake of U.N. sanctions in response to its February nuclear test and a series of joint U.S. and South Korean military drills that have included a rare U.S. show of aerial power.
In Washington, the White House has said the United States takes seriously North Korea's war threats. But White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday: "I would note that despite the harsh rhetoric we are hearing from Pyongyang, we are not seeing changes to the North Korean military posture, such as large-scale mobilizations and positioning of forces."
North Korea further escalated its rhetoric on Saturday by saying it was entering a "state of war" with South Korea in response to what it termed the "hostile" military drills.
A U.S. defense official said the USS McCain, an Aegis-class guided-missile destroyer used for ballistic missile defense, was being positioned off the peninsula's southwestern coast.
"This is a prudent move that provides greater missile defense options should (they) become necessary," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The ship was not expected to participate in any exercises, the official added.
South Korea has changed its rules of engagement to allow local units to respond immediately to attacks, rather than waiting for permission from Seoul.
Stung by criticism that its response to the shelling of a South Korean island in 2010 was tardy and weak, Seoul has also threatened to target young North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and to destroy statues of the ruling Kim dynasty in the event of any new attack, a plan that has outraged Pyongyang.
CHINA CALLED TO HELP ENFORCE SANCTIONS
North Korea stepped up its rhetoric in early March, when U.S. and South Korean forces began annual military drills that involved the flights of U.S. B-2 stealth bombers in a practice run, prompting the North to put its missile units on standby to fire at U.S. military bases in South Korea and in the Pacific.
The United States also deployed F-22 stealth fighter jets on Sunday to take part in the drills. The Pentagon said it was the fourth time F-22s had been deployed to South Korea.
Australia, a close U.S. ally and rotating U.N. Security Council member, said it would urge China to help enforce sanctions banning the flow of technology and equipment to North Korea.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who leaves on Friday for Beijing, plans to call on Chinese leaders to help bolster stop-and-search provisions for shipping to and from North Korea, Foreign Minister Bob Carr said. Canberra also plans its own banking and financial sanctions.
"The immediate priority is to see the sanctions agreed on by the Security Council are properly enforced," Carr said on Tuesday.
KIM JONG-UN TIGHTENS GRIP ON POWER
North Korea has cancelled an armistice agreement with the United States that ended the Korean War and has cut all hotlines with U.S. forces, the United Nations and South Korea.
At a recent meeting of North Korea's ruling Workers Party Central Committee, leader Kim Jong-un rejected the notion that Pyongyang was going to use its nuclear arms development as a bargaining chip for foreign aid for the impoverished nation.
"The nuclear weapons of Songun Korea are not goods for getting U.S. dollars and they are ... (not) to be put on the table of negotiations aimed at forcing the (North) to disarm itself," KCNA news agency quoted him as saying.
Songun is the Korean word for the "Military First" policy preached by Kim's father who used it to justify the use of the impoverished state's scarce resources to build a 1.2-million strong army and pursue development of weapons of mass destruction.
At the meeting, Kim appointed a handful of personal confidants to the party's politburo, further consolidating his grip on power in the second full year of his reign.
Former premier Pak Pong-ju, a key confidant of the leadership dynasty, was re-appointed to the post from which he was fired in 2007 for failing to implement economic reforms.
Pak, believed to be in his 70s, is viewed as a key ally of Jang Song-thaek, the young Kim's uncle and also a protege of Kim's aunt. Pak is viewed as a pawn in a power game that has seen Jang and his wife re-assert power over military leaders.
Analysts said the move would not likely change North Korea's approach to a confrontation that appears to have dragged the two Koreas closer to war.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-deploys-warship-off-south-korea-amid-soaring-013622157.html |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Location: Earth, Solar System
|
Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dude, where's the nuclear-capable in the headline? It should be there. Gotta play up the fearmongering. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steelrails wrote: |
Dude, where's the nuclear-capable in the headline? It should be there. Gotta play up the fearmongering. |
It's okay, it mentions that the region is on the brink of nuclear war (on the brink, that's as close as you can get!), so I think there's a solid implication that everything and everyone involved is nuclear capable!
It's funny, if the word "nuclear" were used this many times in relation to any country in the Middle East, it would be a sign of imminent American invasion, but in this case -- a case where the party in question openly declares itself in possession of nuclear weapons and to be conducting further nuclear tests, and regularly threatens the United States -- it's not. The one government in the entire world which it might actually be responsible to pursue a strategy of regime change against, and the US just dicks around arming Syrian rebels instead. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kiwigoddess
Joined: 07 Feb 2013
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Location: Earth, Solar System
|
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
BTW, two years ago I was at JinHye for the Cherry Blossom festival and there was an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer "deployed" there as well. Where was the sensational article? Heck the thing could have sat there in the harbor and started blasting off Tomahawks (those are nuclear-capable btw) and hitting targets in the North.
Guess what? There's always a destroyer in the area. An additional one is a nice gesture amid rising tensions, but lets not confuse this with a carrier battle group or two moving into the area. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steelrails wrote: |
BTW, two years ago I was at JinHye for the Cherry Blossom festival and there was an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer "deployed" there as well. Where was the sensational article? Heck the thing could have sat there in the harbor and started blasting off Tomahawks (those are nuclear-capable btw) and hitting targets in the North.
Guess what? There's always a destroyer in the area. An additional one is a nice gesture amid rising tensions, but lets not confuse this with a carrier battle group or two moving into the area. |
The destroyers and carriers are largely political and, as you say, are often in the area anyway. I don't doubt for a second that there are subs in the area, too (it's US policy to not discuss sub operations in detail - when they do, it's political as well). I am also willing to bet (could be wrong) that those subs are always on station around North Korea, but nobody freaks out about them (and their nuclear capable TLAMs). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China
|
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mao always thought that nuclar weapons wer not that useful they are so horrific that in short small wars they would not be used. Only when large continental forces were deployed would they be used and then in massive force.
That seems to be the case. now if Russia and China or China and the U.s. go at it they would probably be used and it would be horrific.
But in regional conflict its not going to happen. At least so far.
Much more concerned about chemical or biological weapons. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
The one government in the entire world which it might actually be responsible to pursue a strategy of regime change against, and the US just dicks around arming Syrian rebels instead. |
Only because this is you, of all posters, I'll ask for specifics first: how are you envisioning this regime change to occur?
Also, since the title has been bandied around these forums a bit, have you read B. R. Myers' The Cleanest Race, and, if so, how do you feel its ideas apply to this current round of rhetoric? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
geldedgoat wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
The one government in the entire world which it might actually be responsible to pursue a strategy of regime change against, and the US just dicks around arming Syrian rebels instead. |
Only because this is you, of all posters, I'll ask for specifics first: how are you envisioning this regime change to occur? |
Chinese invasion with NATO support, with North Korea being subsumed as either a province or an autonomous region of China instead of unified with South Korea. China has a large male surplus right now, and that's a recipe for social instability in the long term. It might sound atrocious, but letting off some of that demographic "steam" in a controlled exercise like this, which has independent benefits for the entire region in the long term, is probably the best resolution to a tragic situation that could be hoped for. That assumes something could be worked out in secret with China, but I don't think that's impossible.
geldedgoat wrote: |
Also, since the title has been bandied around these forums a bit, have you read B. R. Myers' The Cleanest Race, and, if so, how do you feel its ideas apply to this current round of rhetoric? |
It looks like it's worth reading based on a glance over it on Amazon, but I haven't read it. It seems to suggest containment as the proper path? I don't know which element of the containment strategy bothers me more: the fact that it's willing to let the people of North Korea suffer indefinitely in their current plight, or the fact that letting a nation with self-declared aspirations towards achieving a nuclear arsenal capable of striking other continents continue to work on that project is completely ridiculous. Moreover, these two problems are intertwined: the more you apply sanctions to stop the latter, the more you reinforce the former. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
geldedgoat wrote: |
have you read B. R. Myers' The Cleanest Race, and, if so, how do you feel its ideas apply to this current round of rhetoric? |
I read it, which is why I was intrigued as to how their propoganda machine would portray lil Kims love of basketball and his friendly meeting with a black American- the antithesis of what Nk stands for.
The Cleanest Race analyses propoganda that is meant for a domestic audience, not the language used in international diplomacy. I suspect that much of the bluster shown on NK TV news was not intended as a direct adress to the white house. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
geldedgoat wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
The one government in the entire world which it might actually be responsible to pursue a strategy of regime change against, and the US just dicks around arming Syrian rebels instead. |
Only because this is you, of all posters, I'll ask for specifics first: how are you envisioning this regime change to occur? |
Chinese invasion with NATO support, with North Korea being subsumed as either a province or an autonomous region of China instead of unified with South Korea. China has a large male surplus right now, and that's a recipe for social instability in the long term. It might sound atrocious, but letting off some of that demographic "steam" in a controlled exercise like this, which has independent benefits for the entire region in the long term, is probably the best resolution to a tragic situation that could be hoped for. That assumes something could be worked out in secret with China, but I don't think that's impossible.
geldedgoat wrote: |
Also, since the title has been bandied around these forums a bit, have you read B. R. Myers' The Cleanest Race, and, if so, how do you feel its ideas apply to this current round of rhetoric? |
It looks like it's worth reading based on a glance over it on Amazon, but I haven't read it. It seems to suggest containment as the proper path? I don't know which element of the containment strategy bothers me more: the fact that it's willing to let the people of North Korea suffer indefinitely in their current plight, or the fact that letting a nation with self-declared aspirations towards achieving a nuclear arsenal capable of striking other continents continue to work on that project is completely ridiculous. Moreover, these two problems are intertwined: the more you apply sanctions to stop the latter, the more you reinforce the former. |
No way America, Japan, and South Korea would ever allow that kind of power grab. I think containment is the only realistic strategy, and even that isn't likely to be very effective any time soon. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leon wrote: |
No way America, Japan, and South Korea would ever allow that kind of power grab. |
Goat asked me what my strategy would be, presumably if I were in charge of devising one for "Team America," so you can hardly object to it on grounds that "Team America" would not allow it. I agree the only "realistic" strategy is containment, but that us because modern America runs entirely on amoral "run out the clock" baby boomer philosophy: they do not care about leaving future generations a rogue nuclear power full of suffering citizens so long as the situation doesn't go to Hell until after they die. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
Leon wrote: |
No way America, Japan, and South Korea would ever allow that kind of power grab. |
Goat asked me what my strategy would be, presumably if I were in charge of devising one for "Team America," so you can hardly object to it on grounds that "Team America" would not allow it. I agree the only "realistic" strategy is containment, but that us because modern America runs entirely on amoral "run out the clock" baby boomer philosophy: they do not care about leaving future generations a rogue nuclear power full of suffering citizens so long as the situation doesn't go to Hell until after they die. |
Ok, then Japan wouldn't allow it, and it would cause them to rearm, which they've already started doing, and trigger an arms race and potential conflict between the two countries, possibly made worse by some power grab over some uninhabited rock they both claim.
It has nothing to do with baby boomers, it has everything to do with power politics and China, Japan, Korea, and America all worried about the relative balance of power in the region. That's how North Korea was created, i.e. splitting up the country so both sides get a sphere of influence, and that's what the first Korean war was fought over. China doesn't support NK because it likes them, but because they don't want strong Korea next to them, especially one strongly allied with America. America doesn't even support Korea because it loves Korea, but because it helps balance against China and NK.
In terms of your strategy, though, I think it would make a bad situation much worse. How many modern invasions intended to provide liberation have ever turned out for the better? I think at some point the regime might become unsustainable, i.e. it will be too difficult to control the access of information in the country or the living situation will become too miserable. I feel fairly certain that the people of North Korea wouldn't welcome us if we did come in to change the regime, I think the only sustainable situation has to come from within the country, rather than brought about by outside powers. The situation has already gone to hell, by the way. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
rollo wrote: |
Mao always thought that nuclar weapons wer not that useful they are so horrific that in short small wars they would not be used. Only when large continental forces were deployed would they be used and then in massive force.
That seems to be the case. now if Russia and China or China and the U.s. go at it they would probably be used and it would be horrific.
But in regional conflict its not going to happen. At least so far. |
I wouldn't be so sure. Obama specifically excepted Iran and North Korea from the U.S. policy of no 'first use' of nuclear weapons in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
And it's very likely that we have been developing nuclear bunker busters for just such an occasion. And to be perfectly honest... if the US does start a war with the North, I hope nukes are in the opening salvo. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lithium

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
Steelrails wrote: |
Dude, where's the nuclear-capable in the headline? It should be there. Gotta play up the fearmongering. |
It's okay, it mentions that the region is on the brink of nuclear war (on the brink, that's as close as you can get!), so I think there's a solid implication that everything and everyone involved is nuclear capable!
It's funny, if the word "nuclear" were used this many times in relation to any country in the Middle East, it would be a sign of imminent American invasion, but in this case -- a case where the party in question openly declares itself in possession of nuclear weapons and to be conducting further nuclear tests, and regularly threatens the United States -- it's not. The one government in the entire world which it might actually be responsible to pursue a strategy of regime change against, and the US just dicks around arming Syrian rebels instead. |
You do realize there is a Pansy in the WH. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|