Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry

February 03, 2003

The Officer And I

Well, it was an interesting conversation. That much is certain. It certainly shattered a great deal of my preconceptions. The vast majority of the conversation was about Iraq and North Korea, as you can imagine.

Here are the highlights of our discussion on Korea:

SPK: "Which country is more of an imminent threat, North Korea or Iraq?"

GO: "Korea, to be sure. It's not only that Korea present such a threat, lurking on the DMZ as it does, with several hundred thousand troops ready to lunge across, plus the artillery barrage that will probably rain down on Seoul. Korea is much more of a weapons proliferator than Iraq could ever be. We are preparing for the worst. You'll probably start hearing about it in the media more, soon."

SPK: "Do you want to elaborate on that?"

"No."

SPK: "Ok, What kind of options do we have?"

GO: "A 'surgical strike' to take out the reactor at Yongbyon is one, pretty much the only one we have. But remember that any strike is a casus belli to the Koreans. It would quickly become a full scale war."

SPK: "It's that bad?"

GO: "Yes. It's worse. There is a very real possibility that they have a few operational nukes although our intelligence about their delivery methods is sketchy. For the past several years most people have been working under the assumption that they only have between 2-4 nukes, it is probably closer to 5-7."

SPK: "Really? But the press says . . . "

GO: "If you look around closely enough you'll see what I am talking about."

SPK: "Ok, what are the implications for the region?"

GO: "Well, we talked about this earlier. Obviously, I mean, the South will suffer enormously--Seoul will probably be 85-90% rubble when it is all over. The North will collapse. Most people say China is worried about a refugee crisis. But they are more concerned about the regime collapsing in the aftermath and protecting their interests. The Japanese are 'very' concerned. The Russians aren't really a factor. At least not yet."

SPK: "Are you saying it has the potential to spark an incident between us and the Chinese?"

GO: "Possible. If we play our cards wrong it could get really ugly. I do not think it will come to that, however. The Chinese would demand a multinational peacekeeping force for the North that did not include any America troops. Their is some talk of a kind of all-Asian contingent to keep us and the Chinese from going at each other, being inserted when the shooting is over. But I am not sure how practicable that is. The farther north American troops go the more nervous the Chinese will get."

SPK: "That's complicated."

GO: "Yup. It is. The whole thing is a mess."

SPK: "Let's turn to Iraq. Ok?"

GO: "Sure."

More tomorrow.

Note: Slightly edited.

Posted by Sean-Paul @ 02/03/2003 07:34 PM | TrackBack




Comments:


The is very very scary.

85%-90% of Seoul reduced to rubble would how many? The refugee problem alone would be overwhelming.

In the absence of a strike on the reactor, what other factors could light the match?

Posted by: dwight meredith on February 3, 2003 11:48 PM



seoul will not be turned to rubble. that is rubbish. i want to fight an enemy that fires at civilians and doesn't fire at my troops. the war will be over sooner than expected if they do that.

we are proposing a troop build up in korea and japan. it's in the news for the past several days.

we currently have a northern boundary in nKorea that US troops are not supposed to cross. that line was established with agreement from China. This isn't 1950 anymore and McArthur isn't in command and wanting to take on the chinese. i think they are less worried about it than in the past. China is more concerned with refugees flooding across their borders and the ensuing humanitarian crisis. an all asian peacekeeping force (IMO) would never materialize.

Posted by: Wesley Dabney on February 3, 2003 11:57 PM



Get your war on!

What country is the US going to go bomb after Korea Wes?

Posted by: Les Dabney on February 4, 2003 08:42 AM



brilliant work sp. i cannot express how gratified i am for this kind of information. well, actually i can, and i will.

Posted by: Cobb on February 4, 2003 12:10 PM



hopefully somewhere in the ME.. or maybe pakistan.

Posted by: Wesley Dabney on February 4, 2003 03:03 PM



In the absence of a strike on Yongbyon I would imagine that possible causes of war are a US discovery that NK has sold nuclear weapons and/or technology to terrorists/Iran/Iraq or some such thing. That, of course, is why we might want to strike the reactor first.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias on February 4, 2003 03:17 PM



We are not going to be South Korea's ally for much longer.


"A former intelligence officer has revealed that the South Korean leader funneled some 2 trillion won ($1.7 billion) to his North Korean counterpart, Kim Jong Il, in return for holding the summit, and lobbied foreign countries to get the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize.

With the cash, North Korea purchased key components for nuclear weapons, 40 Soviet-made MiG jets and a submarine from Kazakhstan, said the former agent known only by his family name, Kim.

The flap came just after government auditors confirmed that the country's giant business conglomerate Hyundai secretly transferred some $200 million, obtained from a South Korean state-run bank, to North Korea just ahead of the summit in June 2000.

See the full article at this link:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030204-042621-6903r

Posted by: Trent Telenko on February 4, 2003 06:42 PM



Dwight:

The population of Seoul is 10.6 million. The population of South Korea is only 48 million.

Posted by: David on February 4, 2003 08:55 PM



North Korea probably is the bigger long-term threat.

What I'd ask your friend is what he thinks should be done about it, what he thinks should be done differently--and why he assumes more isn't being done behind the scenes that he doesn't know about.

In the end, all the critics of the administration's NoKo policy that I've seen have uniformly failed to say what they'd be doing differently were they in charge--except to say that they wouldn't have been so rude, or wouldn't have said publicly that they'd never invade. Which are, perhaps, fair criticisms, but is still mostly about what you wouldn't do rather than what you would.

Posted by: Dean Esmay on February 5, 2003 03:28 AM



Wesley Dabney ....... over inflated sack of sh*t. I have followed the troll saga and all I can say is, “thank god fore this troll,” even though I generally hate them. But if I never herd the troll’s messages I would still be thinking this clown had some self merit and had something militarily involved, as for his for his “factual” postings, which I later learned he did not. What a Liar this guy is. Playing the heart strings for the military for hits on his counter, what a fool.

Posted by: Sloan on February 9, 2003 03:04 PM






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?