Actually, my own belief is that the Kim family regime is doing this becaue they are weak, and that a succession is brewing. Basically, the youngest son is set to assume the mantle of leadership, but hasn’t been groomed for it yet. Kim’s brother in law will serve as a regent until Kim Jong Un is ready to lead. My own personal belief is the KJI is drooling all over himself, and there is a succession struggle between various factions underway. This incident is designed to show North Korean strength, and western (US) weakness.

From the standpoint of an invasion by the North….it’s possible, but not likely. While the bulk of the armed forces are within a day’s march of the front, they are poorly equipped, poorly trained, and poorly led. The armed forces and security forces are there to ensure the Kim and the elites stay in power. The troops have not been fed that well, and are more concerned with looting and feeding themselves. The South Korean forces are well trained and well led, and know how to fight.

As the NK’s don’t have much in the way of logistical support, they likely can’t sustain an advance for more than a few days; they will have to forage. The wild card is if they start lobbing artillery, chemical, and nuclear weapons into Seoul. If the US umbrella is lacking, the various countries will defend themselves as they see fit. No one really wants any conflict; it would send the north Asian economies into a tail spin. The good news: a number of choices are available. The bad news: each one is worse than the next.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@blast #1:

The next time we get into one of those “relitigating of the invasion of Iraq” conversations, think about this cluster and how spread out we are.

@blast #26:

You just fail to see beyond the colossal strategic mess up when we took on Iraq while not having finished the job in Afghanistan (nor killed off Osama & Co.)

North Korea is a prime example of why we should act before a (wmd) threat becomes imminent. And we did that with Saddam’s Iraq- one of the 3 labeled “Axis of Evil”. One down, two more to go. If NK had been the threat removed from the world stage in 2001-2008, what would Saddam’s Iraq look like today? A non-threat? Or would some be criticizing Bush for not doing anything about the Iraq threat today and how our military is bogged down in NK so we can’t deal with Saddam now?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Most everyone gets it here that this is NK posturing for blackmail cash. And included in that posturing is this so called threat about inspecting ships.

After the 2006 bomb test, Bush’s admin pushed thru UNSC Resolution 1718 with sanctions and the monitoring of any WMD material headed to NK. Thing is, we’ve never done it. There’s difficulties involved in actually enforcing yet another UN paper tiger resolution because of a “cooperation clause” to enable these inspections at sea.

Although SCR 1718 contains no language on interdictions, it does contain a paragraph on inspections. It was obviously very difficult for the permanent members to reach agreement on the wording of the paragraph on inspections; the draft originally proposed by the US and Japan was amended twice before a consensus was reached on the final text which reads as follows:

(f) in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, and thereby preventing illicit trafficking in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, their means of delivery and related materials, all Member States are called upon to take, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, cooperative action including thorough inspection of cargo to and from the DPRK, as necessary;

Interdiction or inspection?

There are several significant points about the paragraph on inspections.

First, it calls for cooperative action. It is likely that the US will want to use the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) as the major mechanism for the cooperative action called for in the resolution, as the PSI contains principles on the interdiction, boarding and search of ships. However, given that China and South Korea are not members of PSI, negotiations will be required to convince them to cooperate with the PSI or not oppose cooperative action among other states through the PSI.

Second, the language used in this paragraph makes it “non-mandatory.” In the paragraph on inspections, the language used is “Member States are called upon” whereas in the other operative paragraphs in SCR 1718, the language used is “Member States shall.” Therefore, this paragraph was intended to give Member States some leeway as to whether and how they will take cooperative action with respect to inspections. Therefore, negotiations will be required between the US and other major stakeholders such as China and North Korea.

Third, the paragraph makes it clear that any cooperative action must be consistent with international law. SCR 1718 did not intend to change the existing rules of international law governing the boarding of ships in international waters. Therefore, the principle that ships in international waters cannot be boarded without the consent of the flag state remains unchanged.

Fourth, the cooperative action is limited to preventing trafficking in WMD. It does not cover two other categories of items that are included in the sanctions – conventional weapons and luxury goods. Although SCR 1718 is silent on the interdiction of ships, interdictions can take place under the PSI by cooperating states. Interdictions under the PSI must also be consistent with international law. Most inspections under the PSI will take place when ships are in ports.

Considering it’s almost an impossible Resolution to enforce under the language, it’s not been used, nor is likely to be used in the future. But the stubby King likes to throw it out there to rile up the history deficient press, and add panic to the NK threat fire.

BTW, blast… I do love how you consider turning Afghanistan over to NATO and the int’l community’s control as “not finishing the job.” Can I assume we will have your cooperative nod of approval in the future if we bypass this worthless military body?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@blast:

blast,

The point is that the ROK does not need us for raw numbers – they have plenty of personnel. They don’t have an air force or navy on par with ours and those forces are available if need be.

More importantly, this is another in a long string of exercises in which the DPRK threatens in order to get monetary concessions. The country is a disaster and it’s Dear Leader needs the cash concessions to maintain his own standard of living, to placate his supporters, and keep his opponents in waiting at bay. Besides handouts and his arms trade the only source of income for North Korea is its busy counterfeit and illegal drug export businesses. It’s all about preserving the status quo for the hereditary dictatorship. As others have pointed out here for you to read and understand, Kim does not want to go to war as it will ruin his endless party.

The answer isn’t going to be had by shifting a few brigades in from Iraq or Afghanistan. Again, I refer you to the ongoing shift of American ground forces off of the peninsula and the handover of total control to the ROKs. The Chinese have to rein in their boy or suffer the consequences by aggravating Japan enough to the point where they begin to build their military up to counter Kims conventional and unconventional threats.

Stop counting beans and try to understand what is going on with North Korea but you’re going to have to push those BDS blinders out of the way to have any chance at rendering an objective analysis.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That’s pretty good Blast. First you say the Navy is busy fighting in Iraq, and then you tell me that saying it’s so doesn’t make it so. Please. It took 5 carrier battlegroups to invade Iraq six years ago. I’ll bet there’s no more than 1 in the Gulf right now. If you can find evidence that the Navy and Air Force are stretched thin today, May 2009, because of Iraq then you’re point will be defended. Until then, you’ve got no evidence to show that being in Iraq and Afghanistan (where Al Queda was largely driven out of in late 2001/early 2002), then I’ll be impressed. Till then…you’re point remains unproven. Worse yet, to compare a global (ie WORLD) war on terror to a world war is not a leap at all. You can point to industrial buildup, but if the Air Force and Navy are not overtasked (which you have yet to prove) then there’s no reason for a massive industrial buildup. There are plenty of tanks-tens of thousands of tanks. Now, the US military consists of several MILLION people. barely 1/3 of 1% are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You also say Bush didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan. Really? What’s it gonna look like when the job’s done? Al Queda’s large forces left in December 2001-March 2002. Do we need millions of Americans to go there to hunt down forces that are in a completely different country (Pakistan)? How’s that work: send a million American soldiers to Afghanistan to fight an enemy that’s largely not in Afghanistan, but is in Pakistan. Makes as much sense as sending cruisers and destroyers to Afghanistan.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

liam09: I seem to remember a couple wars where there were fronts in africa, europe, asia, and the soviet union (generally speaking). And we managed to still win those wars (against several large enemies). Oh, the world wars.

liam, you are forgetting the preparation and the actual size of our military at that time. It took years to accomplish the result (refitting our industries) and conscripting tens of millions of citizens. Thankfully the UK hung on by a thread, and the Germans underestimated the size and weather of the Soviet Union.

tfhr: You do realize that the ROK Army is larger than ours and that’s before they call up the reserves…… blast, I’m beginning to think you don’t put much thought into the comments you make here.

tfhr, maybe you don’t put much thought into your comments since if you look at the size of the reserve component of the North Koreans, it is twice the size of the ROK. And as for ROK having a larger Army, you are not considering our Marine Corps as any complement of land based operations. … my point in particular when making my original comment was our ability to defend South Korea is diminished at this point since many of our resources are committed elsewhere.

Scott: There are three really big problems w Blasts’ claim about not enough forces:
1) Call me crazy, but Afghanistan is not gonna tie up the US Navy too much. They’re present, but sending destroyers and cruisers to Kabul….ain’t gonna happen.
2) The US Air Force is present in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not overtasked at all
3) somehow-SOMEHOW, the United States managed to fight the largest naval war in the history of man in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Mediterranean all at the same time. And while doing that, there were expeditionary forces of millions of soldiers in Italy, France, North Africa, and all over the Pacific. Any ONE of those expeditionary forces was 3-10x the size of the total US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan

Well, Scott, you keep changing the subject. First you don’t raise Afghanistan, and now you do. The US Navy will be essential to any issues with Korea, but of course much of our Navy has been tasked in the middle east (remember Iraq). On your #2, I don’t know if the Air Force is over tasked or not, and just saying they aren’t doesn’t make it so either. On your #3, that is laughable to compare the WWII to this, the type of mobilization of resources, both human and equipment took a long time.

You just fail to see beyond the colossal strategic mess up when we took on Iraq while not having finished the job in Afghanistan (nor killed off Osama & Co.) Our present options with regard to North Korea have been very limited by the present condition of our forces and to not recognize that is ignoring the truth.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ blast
We would stop them at the DMZ. It would take a week to destroy their air force and antiquated air defense and we would rule the air. Then we would bomb them at will.
I realize how much you and the other lefties hate our military and can’t wait for them to fail at something, but it isn’t going to happen in Korea. Yeah, they have a nuke. Using a nuke would guarantee the end of their regime. Not even the Chinese would stop that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Obama admin responds to clear, specific, North Korean threat to attack US ships and end 50yr old armistice:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/national-security-adviser-downplays-n.-korea-threat-2009-05-27.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

UPDATE: Today North Korea has declared that the Armistice following the Korean War has ended.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

There are three really big problems w Blasts’ claim about not enough forces:
1) Call me crazy, but Afghanistan is not gonna tie up the US Navy too much. They’re present, but sending destroyers and cruisers to Kabul….ain’t gonna happen.
2) The US Air Force is present in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not overtasked at all
3) somehow-SOMEHOW, the United States managed to fight the largest naval war in the history of man in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Mediterranean all at the same time. And while doing that, there were expeditionary forces of millions of soldiers in Italy, France, North Africa, and all over the Pacific. Any ONE of those expeditionary forces was 3-10x the size of the total US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan

Sorry, but the idea that the US can’t fight anymore wars (until after Dems fulfill their 3yr old promise to end the war in Iraq)…that just isn’t correct. It’s BDS.

Like or Dislike: 0  0