Korea was a forerunner to Vietnam fought right at the start of the Cold War. Korea had been under Japanese control since before WW2, and with Japan ousted, America was left running it and trying to set up a native democratic government, while Russia and China tried to turn it into a Communist puppet nation. This resulted in a division between North and South Korea along the 38th parallel as a peace treaty in 1950, with South Korea being democratic, and North Korea being communist, although communist guerillas continued fighting to overthrow democratic South Korea. Not long after, North Korea's Kim il-Sung decided not to settle for half, and invaded along with Chinese (and unofficial Russian air force) support, initially driving the South into a corner, and even with increasing American involvement, until only a tiny portion of southeast Korea remained outside communist control. ("They shall not pass" mission is presumably this.) The turnaround came with an amphibious landing at Inchon Harbor ("Turning Point" mission), designed to create a second front to relieve the besieged forces further south. This was wildly successful, and American forces quickly regained control of South Korea. However, against orders presidential orders, and in the face of a direct threat of open Chinese involvement in the war, General Douglas MacArthur crossed over the 38th parallel to invade North Korea and unite Korea. This led to the then-controversial decision to fire MacArthur, who was seen as a hero by most of the American public. This was initially successful, but China (and increasingly Russia) followed through on their threats of open involvement in the war, sending far more communist troops and slowing then reversing American advances (which would span from that "Chinese Funeral" back to "New Year's Day Offensive" mission). Eventually, after winding up fairly close to the starting battle lines, a cease fire was drawn up.
Note that the Korean War never officially ended. North and South Korea (and America and China) have been officially at war for nearly 70 years with just a "temporary cease fire" that has never ended. This is why the heavily militarized border between the two Koreas has armed guards on it paid to take shifts staring each other down all day every day for their whole careers just in case today's the day some nutball wants to restart the war. (Which will be fought with nukes and artillery, anyway, so the soldiers are just there to maybe trip the alarm and definitely add to the body count.)
If it restarted total warfare style, fighting would still be fairly similar to other wars as there are a lot of limitations in the use of successfully deploying WMD (which do not have the shock and awe factor that would completely kill resistance the way most modern forces are setup), and artillery naturally is limited. I think the biggest difference that we haven't fully seen yet would be a much larger presence in electronic warfare from jamming to meaconing due to the increased dependence on networking.
Realistically though, I think any conflict is/would be cloak and dagger, super squirrel secret stuff. The Cold War really never ended with the USSR collapsed, the threat just switched. If an overt war occurred, I think it would just be a relatively minor front for things happening in the background considering that the Korean War has a lot of political and logistical consequences today.
If it restarted total warfare style, fighting would still be fairly similar to other wars as there are a lot of limitations in the use of successfully deploying WMD (which do not have the shock and awe factor that would completely kill resistance the way most modern forces are setup), and artillery naturally is limited. I think the biggest difference that we haven't fully seen yet would be a much larger presence in electronic warfare from jamming to meaconing due to the increased dependence on networking.
Realistically though, I think any conflict is/would be cloak and dagger, super squirrel secret stuff. The Cold War really never ended with the USSR collapsed, the threat just switched. If an overt war occurred, I think it would just be a relatively minor front for things happening in the background considering that the Korean War has a lot of political and logistical consequences today.
And of course, there's the nuclear program that has the capability to reach the United States now because Putin gave the North Koreans Russian missile technology to allow North Korea to do so, especially in the last couple years. The Kim family has pursued nuclear weapons explicitly because they see the US as an existential threat to their survival, and they're not rational actors and WILL launch nukes if cornered.
North Korea absolutely does have cyber warfare capabilities, but it's not like they're holding back on it - North Korea's only real economic activity is creating ransomware and using that money to keep the regime afloat.
Didn't Trump, Kim and Moon sign an end to the war recently?
Nope. There was some talk that that might happen, but Kim Jong Un decided he'd gotten all he'd wanted out of talks (like the end of US and South Korean joint training exercises and clemency in the murder of that American they'd captured) and promptly reneged on everything he'd promised. North Korea is even restarting its nuclear testing now that it got what it wanted out of Trump.
Nope. There was some talk that that might happen, but Kim Jong Un decided he'd gotten all he'd wanted out of talks (like the end of US and South Korean joint training exercises and clemency in the murder of that American they'd captured) and promptly reneged on everything he'd promised. North Korea is even restarting its nuclear testing now that it got what it wanted out of Trump.
What? Kim Jong Un didn't get anything. The whole point of these negotiations is that Kim wants the end of sanctions Trump put on NK and Kim thought Vietnam would be Trump backing down in return for partial disarmament (which effectively means none), but Trump didn't waffle. The point of Trump doing Vietnam was to show that it doesn't matter what media pressure NK or China tries, Trump isn't going to sign a feel good treaty for short term political gain like we saw with Obama and the Iran Nuclear Deal. Like he said before, the key to a good deal is being willing to walk away.
So far Trump has not given North Korea or China anything. We have brought them to the table and got some prisoners back without giving anything. The end of training exercises is nothing (honestly from what I hear many of these joint exercises are somewhat of a joke since in practice the US ends up doing the heavy lifting), especially since Trump moved strategic assets into the area where they previously were not as readily present to respond. Our consideration of withdrawing in-country military support is also part of another issue with allied countries not pulling their weight such as Trump's concerns with NATO. Doesn't make sense for Americans to be solely used as meat shields for another country that can't even be bothered to prioritize its own defense.
All articles say it's still happening. North Korea has even stopped broadcasting their loudspeaker propaganda over the border and switched their time zone to match the South.
NWSiaCB said: (like the end of US and South Korean joint training exercises and clemency in the murder of that American they'd captured)
It was canceled for a year. Whoop-de-doo.
NWSiaCB said: North Korea is even restarting its nuclear testing now that it got what it wanted out of Trump.
What did they get, exactly? No sanctions were lifted, so...
I'm not saying artillery won't be used, but any conflict that occurs will not be just artillery and nukes. It will all be combined arms like all previous wars because no weapon is absolute. You can bomb enemy territory to heart's content with indirect fire but it won't win a war (it often won't even stop an impending counter offensive by itself). Similarly, the strategy behind WMD usage have greatly complicated beyond just fire and forget. The past decades there are many defensive systems and countermeasures developed. Not to mention even successful WMD strikes are not all encompassing. You can't bomb your own territory in order to get rid of infiltrators for example.
Asian cracking goes beyond the typical malware, even though we create the technology, they are willing to weaponize it for their purposes. Not to mention they do actually have agents to provide physical presence here in America which potentially threatens even our air-gapped systems. However we have not seen a widespread usage of electronic warfare to its true definition in actual warfare, not just in intelligence.
All articles say it's still happening. North Korea has even stopped broadcasting their loudspeaker propaganda over the border and switched their time zone to match the South.
All the articles that pop up on a Google search for things like "Korea war ending" are from February or last Fall. Everything fell through just a couple weeks ago, so make sure you're looking up current articles.
darkspire91 said:
It was canceled for a year. Whoop-de-doo.
What did they get, exactly? No sanctions were lifted, so...
You severely underestimate how much North Korea has always wanted those joint training exercises to end. (Keep in mind, "training exercises" have always been how countries like Russia have excused military buildups to invade other countries. That's how the invasion of Ukraine started, for example. In fact, the same goes for several of Hitler's invasions.) The training exercises were always seen as one of the best bargaining chips America had, and it's now been cashed in for nothing.
The training exercises were always seen as one of the best bargaining chips America had
Again, that isn't the case at all. The biggest bargaining chip we have is the one Trump created, the sanctions. If what you said was true, then Vietnam summit would have never happened. After all, by your stance Kim got what he wanted (again, Trump had already discussed the issues of other countries not pulling their weight over a year ago), so why would Kim show up to negotiate offering a partial de-nuke?
Again, that isn't the case at all. The biggest bargaining chip we have is the one Trump created, the sanctions. If what you said was true, then Vietnam summit would have never happened. After all, by your stance Kim got what he wanted (again, Trump had already discussed the issues of other countries not pulling their weight over a year ago), so why would Kim show up to negotiate offering a partial de-nuke?
Wow... It's hard to know where to start with this...
OK, so you DO realize that North Korea has been sanctioned since the war 'ended', right? Also, the sort of sanctions being leveled against North Korea are meaningless unless they are backed by an international coalition, because it's not like North Korea's been doing that much business in the United States for us to actually have the ability to do anything to them financially, which is why they've been under UN sanctions for decades. They were, however, significantly upped as punishment for the nuclearization... during the Bush Administration and onwards by a unanimous vote of the UN security council.
Which brings us to how the sanctions are pretty toothless, considering as the Chinese and Russians are brazenly breaking the embargoes and trading with North Korea explicitly to keep it afloat and as a weapon against the United States. North Korea's still a shitshow because it's so badly mismanaged, but China in particular has a vested interest in feeding it whatever resources it needs not to collapse because they don't want millions of refugees from a collapsed state crossing their border. Putin, meanwhile, has been doing it just to undermine the US.
Also, while Steve Mnuchin has been trying to sanction North Korea, Trump's been repeatedly trying to lift the sanctions just because he "fell in love" with Kim Jong Un against the efforts of his own treasury department, state department, and congress, including just recently announcing on Twitter he was lifting sanctions placed on 'North Korea' (which turned out to refer to two Chinese countries caught breaking the sanctions, but Trump was confused). Trump also cited the sanctions being bad for jobs in China as a reason. (Just because a government body - which might not even be the United States - does something doesn't mean Trump did it. For that matter, just because Trump declares something doesn't mean he's doing it, as he's frequently made utterly hollow claims or made false signing ceremonies over no actual policy change. It's hard for "Trump said X" to mean much when he only SAYS it, and then does the opposite tomorrow or even when "The Trump White House" does something, and then he actively works against that the next day depending on who he listened to in the last 5 minutes.)
But beyond that, Kim wanted all he could get, as well as the publicity and legitimacy of making a world leader come and shake hands with him. This is why he loved having Dennis Rodman come over even though there was absolutely nothing on the table, there. He wanted what he could get before he inevitably reneged on whatever deal would involve losing the nukes, because North Korea has never moved from the stance that they consider nukes necessary for the continued survival of the regime. In some of the news reports leading up to the talks, there were things that Kim was willing to negotiate over, like that "actually ending the war" thing or foreign worker programs or easing tensions with South Korea that were on the table so long as North Korea kept its nukes, but, as that previously linked article stated, John Bolton appears to have gotten Trump to insist on total denuclearization first as a means of deliberately scuttling the whole deal, since, after all, it's John Bolton, and he prefers war.
Also, please try to cite a source when you make claims countering ones that have cited sources. If we're allowed to just claim anything we think we may have seen once on /pol/ is true sight unseen, these conversations just become a lot of "nuh-unh".
Again, that isn't the case at all. The biggest bargaining chip we have is the one Trump created, the sanctions. If what you said was true, then Vietnam summit would have never happened. After all, by your stance Kim got what he wanted (again, Trump had already discussed the issues of other countries not pulling their weight over a year ago), so why would Kim show up to negotiate offering a partial de-nuke?
You mean the summit that ended with Trump leaving while sources give contradictory reports as to what, exactly, the North Koreans were asking for and what we were going to do. North Korea is sort of in the position of East Germany in that they need to spend most of their time trying to keep themselves alive as a state and a major part of this is clamping down on their own population tighter than a hard to think of metaphor.
This is just me, but I think more than anything Trump, or the United States or anyone said or did, the collapse of one of their testing sites is what led to them changing their turn since at least for awhile they didn't have anything else to do get people's attention. With reports that they are trying to get a new site up, and that they so far have managed to get a lot of promises from us while they've done fuck all on their end.
The training exercises have always been a show of force, primarily led by America because we wanted it. I don't get this transnational viewpoint that everyone we work with has to be 50/50 with us. We flex our muscles for a reason, and that's to show what we have and make Stalin's ghost jealous. Trump is obsessed with appeasing his base, and he will do anything and promise anything to keep them happy, even if it has massive issues since he'll just deflect and obfuscate until he foams at the mouth and falls over backwards, never letting anyone get a word in edgewise.
Trump's sanctions are not just on North Korea alone, but on China too, who is a major supporting factor of the regime. We don't do a lot of business with NK, but we do a lot a business with China. You see how the cascade works? If you have problems with an employee you go to their boss.
Publicity and legitimacy as a world leader doesn't happen just because you meet with the president. Especially not if said president is still pushing sanctions on your country which blocks trade with other countries allied to said president. If that were true, no negotiation would ever happen as every time you negotiate you would "lose". That isn't how it works unless you give away the store at the table by signing a feel good treaty. Trump walked away with no deal, rather than to support NK's "partial denuclearization" which means none. The idea that arguing for total denuke is a call for war is silly. Not to mention when has North Korea ever cared about how the world perceives them? The whole reason for the summit was to try and get the sanctions off their back, and they didn't get it.
Ultimately you can't have it both ways, either Trump was smart to walk away rather than to accept a partial denuke (which those opposing Trump have already warned that NK was still expanding when they claimed they weren't), or the argument is that negotiation is only a loss and we must go to war to end the threat of North Korea. The irony is that if Trump did the exact opposite of what he did in Vietnam, he would still be criticized. If he didn't show up the media would say he was scared or won't give peace a chance. If he accepted Kim's bad deal they would say Trump is being tricked. Ultimately Trump has been most successful by not listening to the people who have failed on this issue.
Also sources don't help this case. Unless the sources are testimonies from the specific people involved in the negotiations (and everyone who has that knowledge is clammed up tight), everything is an opinion piece on the interpretation of events. For example in the realm of this comment chain alone, we are arguing as to what policy is best for Trump to handle North Korea. Logic doesn't bend to popularity contests and shouldn't be a debate on how many published writers agree with our perspectives. Even if one did have classified sources, they wouldn't leak it to prove a point as that would be counter productive to the objective.
Saladofstones said: ...
It doesn't make sense if we are subsidizing other countries defense because they don't want to pay for it. There is absolutely no reason for us to do so. Training exercises are not for a show of power, they are in order to coordinate SOP between forces so C2 is maintained and fratricide doesn't occur,as well as to exchange tactics and strategies. The training exercise is pointless if the country we are working with is not prepared militarily. Think of it like a study group. Do you really want to partner up with the F-student that doesn't want to study and hasn't prepared notes? No, it would be a waste of your time and effort preparing notes during lectures. Helps them... at your expense.
And of course, there's the nuclear program that has the capability to reach the United States now because Putin gave the North Koreans Russian missile technology to allow North Korea to do so, especially in the last couple years. The Kim family has pursued nuclear weapons explicitly because they see the US as an existential threat to their survival, and they're not rational actors and WILL launch nukes if cornered.
North Korea absolutely does have cyber warfare capabilities, but it's not like they're holding back on it - North Korea's only real economic activity is creating ransomware and using that money to keep the regime afloat.
Most of North Korea's artillery can't even reach the northern edge of metropolitan Seoul, and that which can has to be concentrated north of the DMZ in a very limited area, where South Korean and US forces can counter-battery that artillery with brutal efficiency due to the limited number of adequate sites for the size of artillery we're talking about. Add in the massive number of duds shells within North Korea's arsenal, and the concentration thousand of Chinese expats in the Northern Seoul Metropolitan area, and North Korea's ability to actually threaten Seoul with conventional artillery is hugely overblown. https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/