U.S. debates joining S. Korean military exercises

[longriver]

The Obama administration is wrestling over whether to send an aircraft carrier to take part in military exercises with South Korea in what would amount to a significant show of force after the deadly sinking of a South Korean warship in March.
The back-and-forth over the USS George Washington reflects the precarious security situation in Northeast Asia after North Korea's sinking of the Cheonan on March 26. It underscores a huge issue facing U.S. and South Korean officials: how to stop North Korea, which is believed to possess nuclear weapons, from conducting conventional attacks such as the torpedoing of the Cheonan.

Some within the administration are arguing that dispatching the 97,000-ton carrier to the Yellow Sea off the Korean Peninsula, where the Cheonan was sunk, could anger China or cause North Korea to react violently, according to officials involved in the discussions. Others say the United States needs to send a clear message to its allies and to North Korea and China that the United States is standing firmly behind the South.

"It's a very tough call," said Susan Shirk, a former State Department official and an expert on Asian security at the University of California at San Diego. "You don't want to be too proactive. But you need to send a clear message."

Reports that the United States would send the aircraft carrier battle group surfaced in early June after Washington and Seoul decided to conduct more intensive joint military exercises in response to the attack, which killed 46 South Korean sailors.

On Friday, the Korea Times repeated earlier reports that the George Washington was being sent, citing an unidentified official at the Ministry of Defense. A Pentagon spokesman said no decision had been made.
"I think it's a question of the U.S. and South Korea working out what we want to do together and when we want to do it," said a senior administration official. And as for China, he said, "we'll make sure that they're not surprised."

An international team of experts assembled by South Korea amassed overwhelming evidence that a North Korean mini-submarine sank the Cheonan with a torpedo.

South Korea has since pushed the U.N. Security Council to take up the issue, has cut most ties to North Korea and has sought support from its neighbors to punish Pyongyang.

Still, Evan A. Feigenbaum, a former State Department official now at the Council on Foreign Relations, said North Korea has faced few consequences for its actions.

South Korea has received strong backing from Japan, but China has been cool to its entreaties. China waited almost a month to offer condolences after the deaths aboard the Cheonan and has yet to accept the contents of the report. North Korea has denied involvement in the incident.

China's state-run press has also reacted badly to reports that the United States was considering dispatching the aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea.
"Having a U.S. aircraft carrier participating in joint military drills off of China's coast would certainly be a provocative action toward China," warned the Global Times, an English-language newspaper run by the Communist Party's mouthpiece, the People's Daily.

Shirk and others said they back sending the aircraft battle group.
"Our commitment to the region is always in question because we're the outside power," Shirk said. Add to that the appearance that China's economy has recovered quickly while unemployment is still high in the United States. "It just reinforces doubts about our ability to deliver," she said.

"But it's dangerous," she acknowledged. "I would send it but not say anything about it. I wouldn't make some big muscular statement. I would just say, 'This is normal.' "

Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061804344.html

 

[AZ_Infantry]

We should just send them yet another nasty UN letter threatening them (thank you for proving you're a lying *****, Hillary). Because, after all, the first 12 have done oh, so much to change their intended course of action...

We wouldn't want to pee off China, would we? Because, you know, they might get mad at us and try fighting a war with a 45% shortage of oil supplies when we seal NK off.

Well, that and how upset the Europeans with man purses will be. The only time they need our help is after they're already beaten by a force 1/10th their size.

It's time for the world to wake up. These are Hitler days relived, and there wasn't anything nice about the trench warfare we conducted to win then, either.

Put our BCG out there and get those 18's in the air with surgical nuclear arms for every freaking nuclear anything NK has. We only need one carrier. Aside from the threat of nuclear retaliation (and the idiot world opinion of those who take freedom as a nice, bloodless gift), NK isn't a drop of the dime for the US to handle. IF we do it sensibly, and NOT politically.

Games are done. Or they should be. Pounce very, very hard. Every single military airfield and suspected ( :/ ) nuclear site should be made inaccessible to humans for the next 250-plus years due to the radiation.

 

[Shmack]

Wow AZ_Infantry, i bet Captain America would be jealous about how you can solve problems. :lol:

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Well, seriously - what other choice is there?

We asked.

We begged.

We threatened.

We embargoed.

We tariffed.

We got the entire world to agree with us.

Then we threatened some more.


Sometimes you have to stop pushing in the playground and actually hit someone before everyone else will take you seriously.

If that little pint-sized punk wants to play hardball, throw him a fast one and watch him fall down swinging for it.

"Dear Mr. Il,

"Now that we have surgically struck 90% of your airbases and nuclear sites; now that everyone in North Korea will be looking to assassinate you for bringing our wrath down; now that we control the China link via the oil that was the only thing you've ever been good for...

"Are you ready to talk seriously, or are more games necessary? Because this time you ain't getting a warning letter from the UN that one of our ordnance personnel hasn't taped to a 500-pound nuclear tipped smart-rigged bomb.

"Sucks to be you.

"Love always,

"The government that doesn't let their people starve to death for political puppeteer machinations,

"The free western world."

 

[Wolf]

I realize the complications in trying to suppress aggression, but how long will this game continue. It's argued that NK would feel outnumbered and pressured... but, as was displayed "during" the Korean War, North Korea has the option of fleeing further north, toward allied territory, while South Korea has no such option. For this reason, making a presence, in my opinion, is absolutely essential.

I wouldn't disagree with participating in the exercises. It should be our choice, after all -- not North Korea's or China's.

 

[Shmack]

Well, seriously - what other choice is there?

Even at the very very outside there is no need in using nuclear weapons. That's an obvious outrance. North Korea is not on a far planet, there are other countries around it. I doubt the US could make all of them agree with such ballsy tactics.

Also, if you destroy 90% of their airbases and nuclear sites no one will look for Kim to assasinate him. They will do what they will be told to, most probably launch a counter-attack against South Korea and fire the remaining missiles here and there. If one wants to minimize such possibility he'll have to strike not only airbases and nuclear sites, but grind down all the demilitarized zone and create a huge safety pool which in fact should be the size of NK itself.

I mean you can't just bomb some facilites and start negotiate. Of course they won't reply. Thus, if you've said A you'll have to say B. I strongly believe that the only way to deal with Korea by force is a ground operation. Is the United States ready for that? If yes, i won't be sorry to spend all my life shaking hands with US soldiers.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

The US doesn't have near enough armed forces to sustain a ground offensive against NK. Even if we did, the rest of the world would call us names.

That's where Il thinks he has us: no one in their right mind would ever support US nuclear action in NK, right?

So, I see it 3 ways:

No one will do the ground war

The US will never have support

The rest of the world hates us for inaction, or for acting...



That's the problem with people these days: war is just too icky. It doesn't meet the popularity standards. It has to have rules. And it has to be permissible.

War is a job for tough men making tough decisions.

America needs to stop giving a crap what the man purse wearing sissies in Europe say through their mommy, the UN. Or what anyone else says.

"Well, here's how we're going to do it. If that doesn't meet your standards, get your asses in there and do it yourself. What's that? Oh, you won't? Then a big F you and we're going with the original plan."

There are four reasons why nuclear tipped JDams are the solution:

1. The shock value of underestimating our resolve.

2. Removing the concern of reconstruction.

3. No chance of the target surviving.

4. No American or UN casulaties.

Conventional weapons have zero shock value. They can immediately rebuild. They don't always completely destroy the target, leaving it operational. And conventional weapons can and sometimes do require multiple flights over the airspace to deliver them until the target is completely out of the fight. That endangers friendly lives.

I don't believe Il will watch his entire Air Force go up in mushroom clouds and take his few, remaining air assets to commit to SK. Most of his military is going to do exactly what the regular Iraq forces did: play French and quit. Only his most ardent, loyal, brainwashed (underfed, under-trained, poorly equipped) troops will remain, and they won't be a threat to anyone besides innocent NK kittens everywhere.



Nukes bring an instant disgust. I understand that. But you all that do not support their use are not thinking about it all the way through. Forget that they are icky. They are the most effective, most surgical weapon we have in our arsenal. We can put ANY size warhead on any variety of missiles, cruise missiles, which can be launched from hundreds of miles out.

Stop envisioning huge mushroom clouds AKA 1942~esque. No SURGICAL nuclear strike in NK will affect anyone but NK. And very few civilians will suffer any ill effects compared to how many would die if the US invaded NK with ground forces already so sick and tired of war that they want to shoot everything just so they can go home.

 

[Shmack]

All right, i got your point.

What i mean is that you shall bomb it, ok, let it be TNW, you destroy this reactor, missiles, some other stuff but what next? This won't put Kim into some tricky situation. People might not even know that the Americans have just blown up their nuke power station.

My point is that surgical, even nuclear air strikes won't take Kim and his politics off from the agenda. In such case there shall be a chance for him to pretend like nothing happened. A nuclear blast could become a shock for him and his generals, but not for the whole army, let alone the people. It is not very hard to hide information in Korea, right? I mean why should his army play French if they won't even see the US soldiers?

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Shmack,

More excellent points! I can tell that I am going to enjoy our discussions very much. May I help you to think a bit deeper just as you have done for me. Very nice to meet another intelligent thinker.

You are welcome to refer to me by my screen name, but my real name is Richard. <shakes hand>

You address something I was purposely avoiding:

No, Il's politics, whether through him or through another dictator come to take his slippers, will never die. A war with North Korea is not winnable in any traditional sense of victory - just as we are destined to "lose" Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as Iran would continue in their ways even with us on 3 of their borders.

The sad, sad truth is that you cannot defeat fanaticism. It's an ideal, and when you combine extremism, idealism and religion, this is what you get: man making a mockery of What and Who God is. Whether KJI is a religious fanatic I do not know. But I know his brain is broken, that you HAVE to have something wrong with you to watch your people starve to carry forward with his--also not winnable--political and military agendas. To me, those two types of fanaticism are really no different: mental stability is lacking in both quite equally, I think.

But this leaves one HELL of a big, wide, open area that simply cannot be solutioned in apathy:

If we subscribe to our self-defeat in any attempt to usurp a country's political direction, how far will they go? Will NK once again decide that SK is their property, that Koreans everywhere should be either oppressed or dead? Is that what it takes for the proverbial straw to get on a camel and ride out into a desert towards an Orthopedic Surgeon?

I subscribe to the theory that history's best lessons are found in what could have happened but, through intervention, did not happen. A small bit of study clearly identifies the possible horrors associated with the Optimates refusal to assassinate Ceasar, who at that time (circa 49 BC) was just about to control the entire world had he made it through Britain without changing the Republic to the Dictatorship he so coveted in his youth. Luckily for about 400 other nations, the Optimates DID decide to have someone stick a knife in the man, but what could have happened would have been biblical in its slaughter and oppression.

So with Il, we have to take a peek around the scientific methods of time and try and guessimate exactly where we'll be, where his neighbors will be, if he continues unabated. To him, the free world is like the punk trying to fight with you: the more he keeps threatening but does nothing, the more you laugh at him because his mouth didn't consider his fear. And eventually, you end up knocking his dick in the dirt just to prove the point that he should not have allowed his alligator mouth to override his hummingbird ass.

While OUR use of nuclear-tipped weapons is surgical only in its planned application, would his be when he has full capability? And what's stopping him? More nasty letters threatening him yet again?

I don't worry about SK if we remove NK's ability to nail them. I worry about them if we DON'T, as then all tactical advantage is gone, as is the option to use nukes at all.

No, we'll never defeat the ideal that is the NK doctrine. But we have an obligation to ensure that it remains contained in as small an area as possible.

Your thoughts, sir?

 

[Shmack]

Nice to meet you, my name's Max.

So, i guess that would mean a temporary solution. You show the punk who's the boss, but that would still be a punk with a degree on nuclear physics. You will have to knock him out every N years, but he will recover. Keeping North Korea within North Korean borders is what's happening right now. The US military presence is more than enough for that.

In general, it's not possible to defeat fanatism, but it's possible to cure people from it. I definitely know what i'm talking about. Koreans are not deep-rooted fanatics, Kim is just a criminal, simple Koreans are just mind slaves. Nobody makes them by force with a muzzle near their temples think that there are enemies all around, it's just what they got used to think. They are not dreaming of conquering the peninsula or challenging the United States. If suddenly things change it won't take them too much time to adapt their minds to new conditions.

Also, there's one thing that always worries me. They often say that 'DPRK tosses a challenge to a free world'. That reminds me of the beginning of the Cold war pretty much. Here comes the problem of attitude. For example, i launch a rocket into space - you think i'm launching nukes, you launch a rocket to the Moon - i think you are setting up a military base there. And not just think, but acting like it is true. Although in fact it was just Russia was trying to become first in space, and the US - first on the Moon, no nukes, no bases. That 'overthinking' may sometimes be dangerous. Of course, US-Russian contradictions were more fundamental, while North-South Korean are quite outspoken and direct, but we can never be sure what on Korean deciders' minds is. In such conditions anything can lead to war.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

I was thinking more along the lines of HIM seeing US as the punks with all attitude, all mouth, and no nothing to back it up. How many times have we threatened him with this, that or the other thing, only to never follow through or, just as bad, to follow through with only a little bit?

KJI is like a terrorist: he holds his people in front of him as a shield. In world relations, he does so politically; the agenda that never ends. To truly cut NK off from all outside aid is to murder the innocent NK peasants and middle class, as they cannot and will not survive on their pathetic government resources. Il knows this, and he strums the heart strings of the free world like a bass fiddle.

And I, like you, realize that the lack of information coupled with the outright false information keeps these people both under his heel and in front of him like a shield.

So we agree that the issue with NK is not their ballistic nuclear capability. That's the problem, but it isn't the issue. The issue is turning around a dictatorship, just like ol' Caesar finally faced when the Senate had had enough of his crap. Get it? "Faced..." "Turned around..."

Hahaha, sorry, but I had to laugh at that.

Yes, at the moment the ability of the United States to gather support from her NATO counterparts is containing North Korea. But once NK ups the ante with nuclear arms aimed at SK? Will our advantage still be there? Will any NATO outrage and screaming and tariffs change the fact that once he has nukes, he will ALWAYS have nukes?

I don't see this as a game of containment. I see it as one of prevention.

Which is a huge slippery slope for a nation steeped in pride for its rending of innocence until proven guilty, where possibility and intent are not grounds for legal interference. But that's another thread for another time, eh?

BTW, I was in Germany when The Wall came down. Talk about your celebration... whoo. I swear to you that none of us were allowed to buy drinks for a freaking MONTH - you walked off post, and there was a line of German nationals standing there, fighting for their chance to shove a beer in your hand and hug you and pat you on the back.

I was a typical 19-year old kid, no clue as to the truth of any political reality, just a finger behind a trigger waiting for leave to return CONUS to marry my (now ex) wife.

The experience of the power of the relative end of the Cold War changed us all, I think. To see those Germans, already free, celebrating for their Communist-led brothers and sisters' turn to Democracy was something to behold, almost indescribable.

It sickens me that, today, so many people cannot CHOOSE how they wish to live, under what auspice their leadership touts as the voice of its nation.

I am afraid for South Korea, not for America.

 

[Shmack]

Yes, i got it about punks, but Kim IS anyway afraid of the US intervention. He may act defiantly but i doubt he doesn't care at all. I'm sure there's some red line in his mind he understands he can't cross. Kim knows that you won't cut off Korea from foreign aid, but also he knows, that whether you cut it off or not, the Koreans will think you're The Grand Evil.

I'll tell you quite honestly: i've seen how people live in dictatorship and i'm still pretty far from being extremely worried about South Korea's security and North Koreans' distress. Believe me, you are worried about them 10 times more than the Koreans themselves. Of course, I would be happy to see Korea re-uniting and the Koreans living in democratic and nonstarving society, but the only thing i'm truly worried about are the Korean nukes near Russia. I (personally) don't like nukes on the peninsula, whether they are 'democratic' or 'stalinist'. There are many dictatorships on Earth who are far from being agressive fanatics you can't talk with, like Turkmenistan or Lybia. But when you mix security issues with human rights issues they start being nerveous and acting unpredictably. It's not like the Koreans want to choose how to live but can't. They are sure they've already chosen their way, but they don't know that their alternative was very poor.

Returining to our early discussion, i'd say the United States should not be worried about what the rest of the world shall say in case if they act/inact in this or that way. The US is such type of country which will be hated by some people in any case, whether you do smth or don't. I remember soon after Georgian campaign one of my collegues told me smth like 'I don't understand why they haven't occupied entire Georgia and haven't overthrown their president!. Why care if the world anyway thinks it was Russia who started the war?' If you are the only one who is working on the issue, it's up to you to decide what's right and what's wrong. I'm sure if it becomes real hot, the majority shall stand behind you rather than behind Kim, even if you use non-surgical nuclear strikes. I shall.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

In the years that I have been surfing the Internet, predominately to discuss issues on military-orientated boards, yours is the most sound, logical, unbiased Russian-affiliated opinion I've yet to come across.

I do not say that because you support the United States in this NK thing; it's great to know you do, though!

I offer you the credit I did because, quite frankly, my experience with Russian-affiliated peoples has been frustrating - what is levied at us is usually nothing more or less than parroting of a biased media. You don't seem to share that limitation and can clearly think for yourself.

I appreciate the conversation very much, and I hope you won't take offense to my candid, albeit honest, appraisal of my previous experiences.

 

[Shmack]

Well, many a good cow has a bad calf. You don't have to take that serious because parrots don't have nationality. And i take no offence since i work with parrots every day lol.

 

[Partisan]

We should just send them yet another nasty UN letter threatening them (thank you for proving you're a lying *****, Hillary). Because, after all, the first 12 have done oh, so much to change their intended course of action...

We wouldn't want to pee off China, would we? Because, you know, they might get mad at us and try fighting a war with a 45% shortage of oil supplies when we seal NK off.

Well, that and how upset the Europeans with man purses will be. The only time they need our help is after they're already beaten by a force 1/10th their size.

It's time for the world to wake up. These are Hitler days relived, and there wasn't anything nice about the trench warfare we conducted to win then, either.

Put our BCG out there and get those 18's in the air with surgical nuclear arms for every freaking nuclear anything NK has. We only need one carrier. Aside from the threat of nuclear retaliation (and the idiot world opinion of those who take freedom as a nice, bloodless gift), NK isn't a drop of the dime for the US to handle. IF we do it sensibly, and NOT politically.

Games are done. Or they should be. Pounce very, very hard. Every single military airfield and suspected ( :/ ) nuclear site should be made inaccessible to humans for the next 250-plus years due to the radiation.

AZ I agree with some of your points but I'm sorry yo hear you talk about Europeans in such derogative terms - after all we have fought, sacrificed and bled alongside American soldiers over the last century.

Don't forget that 11 Sept marked a landmark day for the US - it woke up to the reality that everyone else had been dealing with for quite a while. Tragic though the loss of the twin towers was, it has never been just Americans that have suffered.

I had just had to add this as I feel agrieved that you think that only the US fought in Korea, it does disservice to all the other nations that stood fast for democracy.

Please feel free to express your opinions, but please do not ever denigrate the sacrifice of others in a common cause.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

AZ I agree with some of your points but I'm sorry yo hear you talk about Europeans in such derogative terms - after all we have fought, sacrificed and bled alongside American soldiers over the last century.

Don't forget that 11 Sept marked a landmark day for the US - it woke up to the reality that everyone else had been dealing with for quite a while. Tragic though the loss of the twin towers was, it has never been just Americans that have suffered.

I had just had to add this as I feel agrieved that you think that only the US fought in Korea, it does disservice to all the other nations that stood fast for democracy.

Please feel free to express your opinions, but please do not ever denigrate the sacrifice of others in a common cause.

I no more lump the majority of Europeans in with the man-purse so called "men" than I do all Americans with the extreme liberal left-wing sissies we have here.

Unfortunately, both America and Europe have a disease wherein those diametrically opposed to anything resembling good sense speak the loudest and tend to influence the most.

For all the good you all and we all have done in the last century in the current theaters, the tea tolling liberals have had the media's ears, undermining everything positive in an attempt to make us both sound like a bunch of barbaric butchers intent on killing billions of innocent civilians to snipe off a few ragheads in horrid revenge.

The unmitigated gall of those lacking the courage and fortitude to wear the uniform is unprecedented - they judge the military as a whole, the operations without tactical knowledge, and the men and women serving without having ever had boots on beside them. They are a disease let loose like plagues upon the earth, powered by self-righteous mouthpieces supported by liberal media who sniff out every dime's worth of bad news publicity like a hobo to a hot dog.

You've seen these abominations in Europe: they carry man purses, talk in hushed lisps, walk poodles decorated in ribbons, and never have a good thing to say about anyone or anything that refuses their train of thought as their own. The moment the discussion of war comes up, their special interest lobbyist groups toke up on a few bowls washed down with a nice, light Chardonnay and immediately run to the media in "outrage" at the very idea of "wanton destruction" and "complete lack of concern for innocent children everywhere."



Not all of Europe is like that, and I am proud to have trained next to some squared away, high speed European troops that I would trust not only with my back, but with the safety of my nation - and ergo, the safety of my family.

I do not judge a nation by its mouthpieces, sir, anymore than liberals are a true telling of any tale of honest and true American values.

Unfortunately, the fact is that as long as they have the overwhelming power of lip service as they currently do, the unpopularity they swing against others because of the apathy and ignorance of average citizens will continue to force our military into restrictions that tie our hands to get the real job done that needs to be done. They speak of peace to those who are fanatics and laugh at them and just how stupid our people are for even listening to them. They are the 20th century darlings of the media, self-righteous and self-named Mother Theresas who cling to no god but their own sense of holier-than-everything.

I'm sorry if you feel I was disparaging Europe. I was not. I was directing my ire at those in both your country and mine who scoff at the idea of violence as a problem solving tool. Il is a problem. He cannot be reasoned with. He needs to be assassinated and his country brought under control, with every possibility of nuclear arms wiped from their memories in clouds of radioactive vapor.

That will not happen. Rough men stand ready to do violence on behalf of those who sleep peacefully, but those with man purses and left-wing agendas take for granted what we provide for them.

Our nations are on the same team, as most likely you and I are.

I sincerely apologize if you felt that I held that contempt for ALL Europe. I do not!