"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life and they lost it allsecurity, comfort and freedom... When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
#1
Gibbon is a great historian but Athens (I think he was speaking of the Athens of Pericles) was only free in a relative sense (there were lots and lots of slaves). Also, with a few lucky breaks and some less screwball leadership, Athens would have fallen to Persia.
Posted by: lord garth ||
05/28/2010 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"He was a peculiar-looking man, in a big fur coat, reminding one irresistibly of a codfish."
--"Sapper" McNeile, Bulldog Drummond
Now, that's a quote!
Posted by: Fred ||
05/28/2010 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
Stephen Green, part of the Army of Steve and blogger at VodkaPundit, analyzes the potential for war. His conclusions are similar to ours, and he writes well. Worth a look if you need your bullet points lined up.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't believe North Korea will undertake a massive attack of South Korea. I believe they are attempting to provoke the South Koreans into attacking them and getting drawn into a war on the ground in North Korea that the North believes the South would lose. Sort of like Hezbollah drawing Israel into Lebanon a few years ago. Yes, Israel did a lot more damage than Hezbollah did and yes, the battle set back the economic situation of the poor Shiite population in Southern Lebanon by decades ... but the world perceives it as a Hezbollah win. That is exactly what I think North Korea is trying to do. They are forcing South Korea to attempt to occupy territory in North Korea in the belief that the North could resist practically forever and the South would not have the will to sustain it and would eventually leave. The North would be much worse off after, but the world would perceive it as a win for the North because anything that is not a complete loss for them is a win.
#3
At last check there were unconfirmed Net Repors that Kimmie = DPRK was sending milfors to the CHINESE BORDER???
As per POTUS BUSH 1's "LINE IN THE SAND" AGZ SADDAM, ALL THINGS CHANGE EVENTUALLY + NOT EVEN THE BEST MANIPULATIONS OR POLITIX-AS-USUAL, ETC. WILL CHANGE/STOP IT.
IOW, even presum that NOKOR gets any + all its desired econ concessions + internat assistance, IT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO SAVE NOKOR FROM ITSELF???
#4
I very much doubt the Norks will start a war, because they would lose in very short order. Modern precision weapons would bring a society even as primitive as Nork to a grinding halt in a matter of days.
I'd say this is the usual Nork brinkmanship, trying to extract concessions from the South. Although the South may have had enough of rapproachment and is now prepared to play hardball.
#6
I doubt the "Hungry Months" have anything to do with North Korean decision-making. The government is perfectly willing to let its people starve. They have enough food to feed the army. "Military First" is their motto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun
#9
Agreed with gorb. China has an economic interest in SK. Imho, they will ultimately find both moral & Int'l support for China's 1st nation-building...in NK.
How it reaches that point is a matter of conjecture and, frankly, would be more likely the result of an 'accident' than any intentional action by either SK or NK.
#10
Let me offer a 2nd Scenario: China pretty much is fed up with the Kimmie clan. The invite them for a prewar pow wow, even someplace in North Korea. On the way to or from the meeting they all die in a fiery accident. A new leader emerges that happens to favor EVERYTHING the Chinese like.
#11
The more I read and hear about Kim Jong-Il and North Korea, the more it seems to me that the least worst solution would be to just kill the sonofabitch. Wait 'til he and his son and the top brass are all in one place, bunker-buster it with a B-2 or two, and then napalm the rubble just to be thorough. The country is so ruthlessly centralized that its army and all won't know what to do with itself. Certainly, no light-colonel on the DMZ is going to order his regiment to march south on his own hook, not after the Kims have spent three generations selectively breeding personal initiative out of their officer corps.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2010 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I am going to assume war, because, oddly enough, for some of the principals, war might seem to be the easiest option.
Remember that for many years, Kim Jong Il spent lots of time crafting James Bond villain schemes to invade the South, like gigantic tunnels, etc. But now that he knows he is dying, he may opt to do something to start a war.
Conversely, several American Korean hands I've known have concluded that one of the reasons the US has remained in SKor in such numbers is to *prevent* the ROK Army from invading, with or without orders.
The Chinese Army (name change, no longer the PLA) leadership, the "Princes", are highly aggressive warlords that have become increasingly hard for the central government to control.
The General Staff has been seriously reinforcing the border with NKor, with more "reliable" brigades, that will follow orders. This acts as a buffer against some Prince deciding to attack the ROK Army if it invades NKor, unless they have been ordered to.
About the only part the US can play is with anti-missile defenses, unless the Chinese decided to play, then it could turn into an insane submarine battle. The Chinese diesel electrics are not that bad, so this could turn into a wolfpack vs. wolfpack fight that would be a sumbitch.
Surface ships need not apply.
Nukes are the $64 question. Both China and Russia might be willing to send in teams to secure them quickly. The US just does not have those kind of resources anywhere near enough for what would certainly turn into a murderous brawl.
While again, NKor missiles would be vulnerable to PAC-3, the NKors probably lean towards the Chinese doctrine of using ground detonations to halt enemy advances.
(China had an enormous string of nuclear cratering charges on the parts of its border with the Soviet Union where large numbers of tanks could pass.)
In other words, lots of weird possibilities, most of which wouldn't happen, one of more of which could happen. But it would definitely appeal to the drama queens on both sides of the DMZ.
#13
Getting our hands on Nork's Nukes would be cool, but seems to me the US would just let the Chinese keep them. They are probably in good part Chinese tech anyway. US forces in the area would be busy trying to stay alive and inflict as much harm as they could hoping the SKors could get themselves into full swing in time to save US forces and then crush the Nork armed forces.
The Norks will need gas and food. If the SKors made sure they were unavailable, any invasion couldn't make it past Seoul, which would supposedly be in ruins anyway. If there were nothing to hold once they got there and they couldn't go on, the whole thing would seem rather pointless. I don't know what the Norks would do with the remaining population other than hold them hostage to try to trade them for gas and food and head back to where they started, hopefully not having lost their country in the process of being away.
If US forces got overrun the American public would get pi$$ed off at Noobama for getting them killed. Being pi$$ed off at Noobama than themselves for putting his clueless butt there is probably the most palatable option, even though it is equally as clueless.
#14
Mike, if the Kims are anything like Mao - and I think it's a pretty safe bet they're cribbing heavily from the past-master of self-preservation - they have dozens of bunker-palaces, and which one the family is in at any one time is a closely-held state secret.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
05/28/2010 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#15
If China can keep its hands clean, who would be in the best position to rebuild SKor (win or lose) other than China? If China's hands get soiled, who is going to stand up and say hey China, the world doesn't need your help to rebuild SKor - the UN? If the Norks lose, what does China lose if anything, or even gain?
I was going to say the biggest loser, other than those in area, would be the UN but they loves themselves disasters - its how it grows.
Not for me. My $64 question is the significant investment North Korea has made in chemical weapons. If they use those, it would be worse than nuclear. There would be no turning back. North Korea would be toast. If North Korea used them we would probably nuke them.
#18
If the north did start with Chemical or Bio weapons - how long do you think before Obama authorizes the use of Nukes (even Tactical) to shut them down?
I mean he has to go Golfing and Vacationing first right? Then there is the 2-3 weeks to make the awful decision, consult with the international community, get a consensus, etc...
Meanwhile its raining Bio and Chem death on our allies....
#20
(from FAS) (actual reality may vary. Some settling may have occurred during shipping and handling.)
"In the assessment of US intelligence services, their reserves, accommodated in perhaps half a dozen major storage sites and as many as 170 mountain tunnels, are at least 180 to 250 tons, with some estimates of chemical stockpiles run as high as 5,000 tons. In May 1996 ROK Foreign Minister Yu Chong-ha reported to the National Assembly that it was estimated that North Korea possessed approximately 5,000 ton of biological and chemical weapons. Given the extensive production facilities, this later estimate may constitute the low end of the actual stockpile.
North Korea is capable of producing and employing chemical weapons that virtually all the fire support systems in its inventory could deliver, including most of its artillery pieces, multiple rocket launchers (including those mounted on CHAHO-type boats), and mortars. Some bombs the Air Force employs also could deliver chemical agents, as could the FROG or the SCUD missile.
North Korean military units conduct regular NBC defensive training exercises in preparation for operations in a chemical environment. North Korea has chemical defense units at all levels of its force structure. These units are equipped with decontamination and detection equipment. North Korean military personnel have access to individual protective masks and protective suits."
More fun reading on MOPP for chemical environments:
MOPP (Mission Oriented Protective Posture) (acronym pronounced as "mop") is a military term used to describe protective gear to be used in a toxic environment, i.e., during a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) strike:
* Protective mask Commonly referred to as a gas mask. It is designed to filter harmful chemical and biological agents, as well as irradiated particles from the air to allow the wearer to breathe safely. No protective masks filter out gasses such as carbon monoxide, and in situations requiring that level of protection, external breathing apparatus is employed.
* Mask carrier Protects the mask from damage. It is usually worn as part of battle gear for easy access and usually contains a technical manual, spare parts, and nerve agent antidotes.
* Overgarments Specially designed clothing to be worn over the normal uniform. These garments are designed to allow maximum airflow for cooling while keeping chemical and biological agents from reaching the skin of the wearer. Some are equipped with a charcoal lining to neutralize some agents. Overgarments are often equipped with strips of M9 Detector Paper.
* Gloves and overboots Highly durable rubber, designed with combat operations in mind. Used to prevent contact with agents
#23
"Chemical weapons are very dependent on precise delivery, which is not the Nork strong suit."
A SINGLE chemical weapon, maybe, but not an artillery barrage blanketing an entire city. That stuff is in artillery shells. They have TONS of of the stuff. They could wipe out Seoul without damaging the infrastructure. Nobody in a MOPP suit is going to survive there long. A MOPP suit gives you enough protection to (maybe) make it the hell out of the contaminated area. It is not designed to protect you well enough to fight in it.
You can plaster a city 35 miles away with nerve gas in about 5 minutes.
"US forces have pro masks and MOP suits and conduct NBC drills. "
Yeah, those are good for a few hours in a chemical environment. Persistent (oil based) nerve agent can linger for a week or more depending on weather conditions. And it is completely odorless/colorless and a single drop on your skin will kill you.
#24
Yes, Mop is good to wear as you're running driving or flying the hell away from contamination. War kicks off and chemicals come out, the majority are going to be dropping like flys.
Norks chemically attack Seoul, and simultaneously gases all military bases North of Seoul. 95% +/- in those areas die. Colonels and above are airlifted out just in the nick of time. Remaining population in urban areas starts to flee to South and to the Woodlands and Mountains which comprise 65% of the land on foot...they will form rogue bands of resistance, but won't be enough to stop the coming Nork invasion. Some of the lucky ones wind up at the gates of the southern military bases and eventually escape on boats. A mass crisis happens, and chaos ensues. Norks roll in and the surviving 2ID try to fend them off unsucessfully. Norks take over the entire penisula and subjugate the populus into a workers paradise, and eat all the tasty food from raiding stores and markets. Dead bodies litter the streets and roadways. Norks start starving the South Koreans, and feeding themselves off of canned goods and crops. Obama does nothing, neither does Japan, China, Russia, or the UN. In the end, its another communist paradise.
#26
It is estimated that North Korea has some 13,000 artillery tubes deployed along the border. Assuming 10% of them are in range of Seoul (conservative) and a rate of fire of 5 rounds/minute (conservative) that would mean 6500 rounds a minute into Seoul.
It is further estimated that Seoul would be leveled by artillery fire in about 2 hours.
North Korea has the world's largest artillery force. They don't have a lot of money to spend. They wouldn't buy it if they didn't intend on possibly using it.
I believe the game North Korea is playing is one of a kid who has a great big friend (China). The kid picks a fight to provoke someone into attacking him, and then relies on the bigger friend to protect him. They are going to do things like throw a rock at you when nobody is looking and shoot spitballs ... constantly ratcheting it up and gauging how far they can push it. The idea is, I believe, to get South Korea to attack. So far North Korea has lost little for killing those sailors. They are apparently learning that as long as they space out their provocations, they can do whatever they like.
Military force is all North Korea has and we all know the old saw ... "When your only tool is a hammer, the entire world looks like your thumb."
#27
I get that the destruction would be quick, but if I was a Nork, I would want to keep the infrastructure intact in South Korea so I can use it later on, but still kill everyone. Is it conceivable they (Norks) might intend to use alot of chemical weaponry in combination with artillery to keep the infrastructure more intact for their later use and exploitative goals?
#28
GT: All MOPP gear did for us in GW-I was keep us warm at night. The most useful gear we had were the Czech CW units mobile detector vehicles.
You can plaster a city 35 miles away with nerve gas in about 5 minutes.
With what artillery? Given the high alert status and counterbattery, NK artillery with the requisite gun range (170mm), stationed close enough to hit Seoul (approx 230-270 tubes) and crew ability to fire Chem munitions (does require special training, so only about 10-20% of the tubes are so qualified) has a functional lifespan of less than five minutes. Secondarily, they do not keep Chem stockpiles near the batteries routinely (estimated 10% have local storage and access). So the initial attacks they have, short of a large and obvious distribution of CW, are limited.
Amateurs always seem to make the N-Koreans out to be some sort of supermen who can magically throw together a TOT barrage from all guns on the front without giving the whole thing away via SIGINT and a crapload of other indicators.
After you examine the number of tubes that can hit Seoul, the number trained, and the number supplied with CW, the total number of CW trained and supplied tubes is in the vicinity of 25-50 (without significant and noticeable changes) at any given time, most of which are heavily monitored and observed, as well as already punched in for CB artillery fire missions and MLRS-type suppression missions.
Please folks, do the math before you paint a sensationalist picture of Armageddon. First, there are counters, and secondly, there are good (military) reasons why such a continued civilian targeted barrage would not be quite as likely as many here seem to think.
They do have over a million tons of munitions and POL set aside for military use, much of it in hard bunkers and stored in mountain tunnels to the N of the DMZ.
The problem for them is most of their transport (90%) is rail, not roads (and roads are only about 15% paved), and much of that rail is single-track, and runs N-S. So disrupting their logistics is relatively simple (single tracks really kill them here), as is detecting their spin-up for war, and detecting where their main effort/axis its (the N-S directionality leaves little room for movement in any other direction). They have little to no way to reinforce or supply efforts laterally (E-W) if a N-S path is interdicted.
Plus the stuff is a bitch to store and transport, especially VG and other nerve agents (The old Soviet Union always had problems, with far better trained troops and better equipment, and better designed binary munitions).
There's the whole question of the sheer military stupidity of a mass destruction attack on Seoul, destroying the very thing of value that you would assume they wanted to capture loot - plus, as the Germans learned in Stalingrad, in a modern city rubble can make a formidable defense barrier and allow even smaller forces to hold out against large assault units.
Additionally there is the military error of putting artillery fire and effort into terrorizing and destroying civilian targets, instead of providing needed massive prep fires and other military artillery uses along their main lines of assault against the military that could prevent them from breaking out and exploiting any holes in the US-SKorean defenses.
This isn't to say that there are no concerns.
On big question is the impact of SCUDs they have in relatively large numbers for rear area strikes (the most likely place for the NKorea to use persistent blister and nerve agents are US and Korean Airfields, and logistical centers for reinforcements).
And the nonpersistant CW stuff (blood agents, choking and gas based nerve agent) is probably targeted via the shorter range artillery at US and S-Korean troops near the DMZ to maximize disruption and allow them to achieve a breakthrough into rear areas with armored forces.
Its classic 1970's Soviet mechanized doctrine for those of us that have been there done that. For those of you that haven't been in prior to 20 years ago, you may not be as familiar, but we did have operational art that would counter and defeat a great deal of this sort of offensive action.
The real joker in the deck are the special ops with the emphasis penetration to rear areas, then infiltration and destruction of logistics and infrastructure.
The key thing is that they have 72 hours to break out and run, before thier logistics stops them, and US Airpower completely takes over. In the meanwhile they will still have to deal with cruise missiles, PGM, EW and so on that would degrade or shatter their C3I systems badly within the first 24 hours of offensive action. Not ot mention that after the initial shock of the assault, defense is almost always easier than offense.
So please, study a bit before predicting gloom and doom. It ain all sunshine and roses, but NKorea would likely cease to exist within a week of hitting the South with everything they have. the only thing open to question is the amount of civilian lives that would pay the price for Kim megalomania, and China's failure to remove the Kim dynasty while they could still do so peacefully.
#29
Norks chemically attack Seoul, and simultaneously gases all military bases North of Seoul. 95% +/- in those areas die. Colonels and above are airlifted out just in the nick of time.
So you really believe that? And how do they catch all those units in garrison, flat footed, unprepared, while they clandestinely give orders, stockpile and distribute chem munitions, then prep for a huge TOT chemical strike across the entire peninsula? Sorry, gotta call you on that one. Especially that horseshit there at the end about US flag officers bailing on their commands. Save that shit for Daily Kos.
#30
You don't need artillery to chem attack Seoul! Low tech works just fine. Just send some Nork infiltrators in to do it by hand. Air ducts, large buildings, subways and large populations. Not that hard to do.
#31
As I said, and I will say it again, I know some things and some things I dont know. Its not about bailing, its about if everyone gets killed, there is no command. And in the gridlock in Seoul, the only way out is by air. I lived there, OS, so quit your horsehit talk.
#32
All the above aside, most of you are missing hte point:
The primary question here is not a military one, its a political one.
Does Obama have the wherewithal to present a credible deadly response that will keep even an insane desperate aging dictator from rolling the dice and attacking?
That is what this will hinge upon.
Sadly for a couple million people and thousands of US troops, the answer is likely "no".
That means the only thread holding this in place is the Chinese willingness to stop Kim (because the US doesn't have the leadership to present proper threat to dissuade him).
Perhaps Clinton gan go to her investors (the Chinese) and offer them NKorea if they will install a puppet friendly to them - the US will immediately help NKorea rebuild and supply China with cheap labor. Its a sellout, but one I bet is already rolling around in State Dept - making China an offer to fix NKorea's economy for them, and hand NKorea to them on a silver platter along with a complete US withdrawal from SKorea, if the Chinese will get rid of the threat of war by installing a junta that will be willing to make deals.
I was not questioning the Airlift part you disingenueous little asshole. Seoul being gridlocked is true even on a good day, I've been there too, on business a year ago as well as multiple TDYs in prior decades, the growth is astounding.
I was questioning YOUR HORSESHIT ACCUSATION that all flag officers would bail.
Care to defend your blanket accusation of all flag ranks in Korea being chickenshit you dishonorable little bitch?
#34
And secondarily TwatThursday, please enlighten us all with how they achieve a complete bolt from the blue CW attack cross the entire front without tipping it?
#35
Old Spook, your rudeness is so interesting and of course, because everyone should just bow to your superior intelligence and name calling. Because you are Older And Wiser. So why are you acting like an adolescent?
#36
Suprised you take such offense at the thought of Colonels not getting killed in a war zone. Like this is news. They usually don't, dipshit. As for all the other names you've slung, the only thing I can say to you is too bad your temper is clearly running your thoughts, all two of them.
#37
One other point that bears mentioning : several news reports state that South Korean units are having all leaves cancelled and are being set to prepositioned defensive sites. Now I am sure that the Norks know where those are BUT the big thing about those sites is that they are dispersed, and if you want to use NBC against them, you have to REALLY spread the attacks around. The SoKors are not just sitting in their big nice bases now, they are spreading out -- which eliminates a lot of the utility of chemical weapons. As for the Norks' Special Forces, there are a lot of them but the last major campaign that they were involved in was in the 1980s in Zimbabwe, against civilians. No major military experience for the past 25 years or so.
#38
"Is it conceivable they (Norks) might intend to use alot of chemical weaponry in combination with artillery to keep the infrastructure more intact for their later use and exploitative goals?"
I don't think they will opt for a massive attack. I still believe they are simply going to be as obnoxious as possible and try to provoke an attack on themselves. Their military and their country is more geared toward being a fortress. They would stand the most to gain by simply drawing someone into a stalemate with them. The way to defeat that tactic is to now allow it.
What Israel did in Lebanon was one example. Rather than moving massive numbers of troops in to attempt to occupy ground wired with booby traps, they make short in/out forays and took out infrastructure. How is the Lebanese apple crop these days South of the Litani?
Old Spook, North Korea has more artillery than any other country on the planet (and that includes China and Russia) and most of it is concentrated in a pretty small area.
North Korea isn't playing American football. They aren't even playing Chess. It is more like backgammon where you have a combination of chance and skill. They wait until an opportunity presents itself and take advantage of it.
My guess is they will bluster a bit with words, cancel agreements, etc. but won't take any further active measures for a while until things cool down a little ... and then they will do something else.
They have apparently learned that they can get away with it as long as they don't do too many things too quickly and with this current President, they can probably push the limit more than they could in the past.
The trouble is they are probably wearing out China's patience with them. Russia doesn't seem all that happy with them either. Their only friends seem to be Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela and Venezuela only because it is lead by an idiot who simply wants to see someone punch the US in the nose.
#39
"And secondarily TwatThursday, please enlighten us all with how they achieve a complete bolt from the blue CW attack cross the entire front without tipping it?"
Um, there are people in South Korea that are sympathetic to North Korea in and around every military base? And like you need a degree in Chemical Engineering to deploy canisters of Chemical agents?
#40
BLUF: Another Korean War (should the North come south) would be very, very chaotic and bloody. The refugee problem would be unparalleled in annals of history. The north has several divisions of so-called 'Special Forces' that would infiltrate the south and create havoc almost immediately. I suspect we'd lose Seoul and most of the 2nd Inf Div within the first 24-48 hours while awaiting some sort of decision from Commandante Obama. I hope I am dead wrong. The first few hours will be key.
#41
Bad news, you will be in MOPP gear for a few weeks. Good news you will be ready for bikini and speedo season. Reality, IF there is a war and they don't have a nuke, they will lob some bio or chem attack. A telling sign would be the departure of the NORK officials families to china.
#42
Does anyone honestly believe Bambi will authorize nuke release even if the Norks use massive WMD chem or bio agents? I for one doubt it under any circumstances. The POS cares more about his legacy than anything, and he doesn't have a clue that the hardboys in Moscow, Peking (really pisses them off to spell it that way) and Pyongyang (not to mention a raft of 2nd and 3rd world s*itholes in both hemispheres) have broken that code on week 3.
If you are on the peninsula or floating around it, MOPP 4 forever my friend.
#43
China has to think about this hard. If NK uses nukes, chem, or bio - Japan and what's left of SK, and possibly Taiwan will have the justification to go nuke-capable. I suspect Japan, SK, and possibly Taiwan, are fully capable of making that jump pronto. Time to curb your dog, Hu
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2010 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Didn't Bambi say a few weeks ago that the US would not use nukes to respond to a non-nuclear WMD attack? So NK is free to use all the chem/bio weapons they want, and they can rest assured that we won't nuke them.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/28/2010 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
#45
VARIOUS > CHINA: WE WILL NOT DEFEND ANYONE IN KOREA CRISIS.
IMO read, AS LONG AS THE US STAYS SOUTH OF THE KOREAN DMZ = NO REPEAT OF DAT "MACARTHUR AT THE YALU" 1950 THINGY
* NEWS KERALA > NORTH KOREA: WE DID NOT SINK SK WARSHIP.
* WND.com > NORTH KOREA: WE WILL MEET CONFRNOTATION WITH CONFRONTATION/WAR WITH "ALL-OUT WAR".
Also, WMF > DPRK NDC SECRETARY [Major Gen. PU LINSHOU]:NORTH KOREA MAY RESPOND WITH ALL-OUT WAR/ATTACK TO ANY SOUTH KOREAN BORDER PROVOCATION(S), AND IN DOING SO ACHIEVE NATIONAL REUNIFICATION OG TWO KOREAS.
and
TOPIX > NORTH KOREA DOES NOT RULE OUT ALL-OUT ATTACK.
#47
In the first Korean War, it still took days for the Nkors to 'blitzkrieg' to Seoul facing a military force that lacked AT weapons or any heavy artillery. That was before the urban sprawl that constitutes metro Seoul extended more than half way to the border. They're not going to be much faster today.
If he Nkors use chem, they too have to move through the same areas. Regardless of what you might want to envision, they are no better prepared to sustain operations in such areas either. The key to any successful op is rehearsal, rehearsal, rehearsal. They're not doing that.
While old Soviet doctrine calls to burn off the first echelons of any attack, the remainder that get through are going to have to be sustained somehow because by contaminating the areas they have to travel through, they're going to deny their own forces the means to 'live off the land'. Within one or two days the formations will have to disperse to forage off of the areas beyond the contaminated zones making them vulnerable to counter attack.
And if you've live there, you'd also know that terrain channelizes most of the north south flow which constricts forces into kill zones for air and MLRS interdiction.
The opponent is not 10 foot tall. And, yes we'll screw up. The lesson is to screw up less than the other guy. He's going to have his own.
#48
Japan is 6 weeks away from thermonuclear warheads - most of their reactors burn plutonium. Most consistent estimate on South Korea is 6 months if they want one bad enough to burn some bridges with the US - major NBC attack on South Korea with NO US nuke response would do it.
Taiwan is about 6 months out as well, but they don't have the nice IRBMs that Japan does.
#49
OldSpook, please refrain from ad hominem attacks, it lessens you. Even so, GirlThursday's scenario is very unlikely. Not impossible, but very unlikely, but certainly what she says is agitprop. Ignore it.
To really prep for an synchronized attack, the Norks would run out of fuel not 72 hours after they kicked off, but 72 hours before they did. Further, many of their troops would die from mishandling of CW weapons well before the appointed hour. If they did kick off the big attack, half of the equipment of ther vaunted forces would fail. What worked in the first hour would break in the next. Their air force and navy would head out for one crazed sortie and never return.
Yes, the civilian SKor casuaties would be huge. But everyone would know what was coming days in advance and military losses would be few.
After shooting their bolt, all the Norks that didn't want to die would surrender or retreat.
The real crisis would be afterwards. There are 20 million north korean citizens, who are victims of this horrid regime. It will be hard to give them what we want them to have, but easy to provide food, comfort and freedom to be what they want to become.
During the debate over ObamaCare, the bill's opponents were excoriated for talk of rationing and death panels.' And in fairness, with a few minor exceptions governing Medicare reimbursements, the law does not directly ration care or allow the government to dictate how doctors practice medicine.
But if President Obama wanted to keep a lid on that particular controversy, he just selected about the worst possible nominee for director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the office that oversees government health care programs. Obama's pick, Dr. Donald Berwick, is an outspoken admirer of the British National Health Service and its rationing arm, the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE).
I am romantic about the National Health Service. I love it,' Berwick said during a 2008 speech to British physicians, going on to call it generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just.' He compared the wonders of British health care to a U.S. system that he described as trapped in the darkness of private enterprise.'
Berwick was referring to a British health care system where 750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals. The government's official target for diagnostic testing was a wait of no more than 18 weeks by 2008. The reality doesn't come close. The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks. For trauma and orthopedics patients, the figure is only 20 percent.
Overall, more than half of British patients wait more than 18 weeks for care. Every year, 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed.
The one thing the NHS is good at is saving money. After all, it is far cheaper to let the sick die than to provide care.
At the forefront of this cost-based rationing is NICE. It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for NHS, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patient receives, such as prolonged life, are cost-efficient for the government.
NICE, however, is not simply a government agency that helps bureaucrats decide if one treatment is better than another. With the creation of NICE, the U.K. government has effectively put a dollar amount to how much a citizen's life is worth. To be exact, each year of added life is worth approximately $44,305 (£30,000). Of course, this is a general rule and, as NICE chairman Michael Rawlins points out, the agency has sometimes approved treatments costing as much as $70,887 (£48,000) per year of extended life.
To Dr. Berwick , this is exactly how it should be. NICE is not just a national treasure,' he says, it is a global treasure.'
And, Dr. Berwick wants to bring NICE-style rationing to this country. It's not a question of whether we will ration care,' he said in a magazine interview for Biotechnology Healthcare, It is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'
Dr. Berwick, a professor of health policy at Harvard, actually favors a single-payer system for the U.S. But what he considers absolutely essential to health care reform is government control over health care spending, not just for government programs but by patients themselves. The hallmarks of proper financial management in a system,' he wrote, are government policies, purchasing contracts, or market mechanisms that lead to a cap on total spending, with strictly limited year-on-year growth targets.' That way rational collective action overrid[es] individual self-interest.'
Recent reports suggest that the recently passed health care bill will be far more expensive than originally projected. As it becomes apparent that that ObamaCare is unsustainable, the calls for controlling its costs through rationing will grow louder. With Donald Berwick running the government's health care efforts, those voices will have a ready ear.
Maybe those worries about death panels weren't so crazy after all.
...The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.
I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America--confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"
This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn't like about the Bush administration, everything it didn't like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point--they know it without being told--but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush's incompetence and conservatives' failure to "believe in government." But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.
Remarkable too is the way both BP and the government, 40 days in, continue to act shocked, shocked that an accident like this could have happened....
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2010 06:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble.
#2
Obama: Gov't in charge of oil disaster response
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama defensively and sometimes testily insisted on Thursday that his administration, not oil giant BP, was calling the shots in responding to the worst oil spill in the nation's history.
"I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure this thing is shut down," Obama declared at a news conference in the East Room of the White House. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill dominated the hour-long session.
#4
ahhhh Peggy, you elitist twit. On what basis: resume, experience, positions, policy, did you deduct he would be competent? None. You were enthralled and feeling the "hope-and-change" moistness. STFU and acknowledge your hollow choice. As if he isn't living up to his creds. To paraphrase Dennis Green: "He is who we thought he was". You are the one in the wrong. *spit*
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2010 10:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
As I recall we had a vice-presidential candidate who had in two of her previous offices had to deal with the Majors, and had developed a reputation of being hard-nosed in doing so, and had even sued BP when she was Governor of her state.
And the character assasination against her NEVER STOPPED. And harrasment. And (should I say it?) what in a civilized society would have been seen as prosecutable barratry.
We got stuck with the President BP wanted because they didn't want to deal with the governor who had sued them in previous years, and we never asked where all the money was coming from for the whisper campaigns.
#7
Geez, I knew he was gonna be an incompetent amateur. I'd be grateful if that was the least of it. So how come I don't have a column in the friggin Wall Street Journal?
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2010 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And yes, most of those things are quite sensible and important. The problem is they dont add up to a national security strategy.
Notice how Gelb doesnt have a problem with what Obamas NSS actually says but takes issue with how its said? Gelb has never given a rip about US sovereignty. And, in his mind, the US constitution is merely a quaint historical document. He just pines for the old school speechifying the likes of his favorite wordsmith Kissinger. Gelb and his Transnational band of crooks can go to Hell!
#3
Obama outlined his decision making process quite neatly yesterday actually. Form a committee, when the committee is unanimous send it along to a review committee for approval, then onwards to the WH for final review and consideration. Process, loves process.
Of course there is the consideration that it is supposed to be forgettable.
The Democratic Party is feeling the heat for US President Barack Obama's hostility towards Israel. In an interview with Israel's Channel 10 earlier this month, Democratic Party mega-donor Haim Saban characterized the Obama administration as ideologically aligned with the radical Left and harshly criticized its treatment of Israel. Welcome to the New Democratic Party, Haim.
Both Ma'ariv and Yediot Ahronot reported this week that Democratic congressmen and senators as deeply concerned that the administration's harsh treatment of Israel has convinced many American Jews not to contribute to their reelection campaigns or to the Democratic Party in the upcoming mid-term elections. They also fear that American Jews will vote for Republican challengers in large numbers. Fear well grounded, I might say. The congresscritters better realize that there are issues larger than them and their reelection.
It is these concerns, rather than a decision to alter his positions on Israel specifically and the Middle East generally that now drive Obama's relentless courtship of the American Jewish community. His latest move in this sphere was his sudden invitation to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to visit him at the White House for a "warm reception" in front of television cameras next Tuesday. So now O wants to make nice to Bibi because O wants something.
It is clear that electoral worries rather than policy concerns are behind what the White House has described as a "charm offensive," because since launching this offensive a few weeks ago, Obama not changed any of his policies towards Israel and the wider Middle East. In fact, he has ratcheted up these policies to Israel's detriment.
Take his goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. On Friday, the UN's month-long Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is scheduled to adopt a consensual resolution before adjourning. According to multiple media reports, Israel is set to be the focus of the draft resolution that will likely be adopted. Hobble Israel and enable Iran.
The draft resolutions being circulated by both Egypt and the US adopt Egypt's demand for a nuclear-free Middle East. They call for a conference involving all countries in the region to discuss denuclearization. The only difference between the Egyptian draft and the US draft on the issue is that the Egyptians call for the conference to be held in 2011 while the US calls for the convening of the conference in 2012-2013. The draft resolution also calls for all states that are not members of the NPT Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea to join the NPT as non-nuclear powers.
So while Iran is not mentioned in the draft resolution -- which must be adopted by consensus -- in two separate places, Israel's purported nuclear arsenal the target of an international diplomatic stampede.
In 2005 Egypt circulated a draft resolution that was substantively identical to its current draft resolution. But in stark contrast to today's conclave, the NPT review conference in 2005 ended without agreement because the Bush administration refused to go along with Egypt's assault on Israel.
Particularly in light of Iran's nuclear weapons program and the Iranian regime's expressed goal of destroying Israel, the Bush administration preferred to scuttle the conference than give any credence to the view that Israel's purported nuclear arsenal is a greater threat to global security that Iran's nuclear program which, as with today's draft, wasn't mentioned in Egypt's resolution five year ago. The Obama administration has no problem going along with Cairo.
Obama's willingness to place Israel's nuclear program on the international agenda next to Iran's nuclear program is par for the course of his utterly failed policy for contending with Iran's nuclear program. After his diplomatic open hand policy towards Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was met with a clenched fist, Obama's attempt to convince the UN Security Council to pass "smart" sanctions against Iran has been checkmated by Iran's nuclear deal with its newest strategic allies Turkey and Brazil.
That deal, which facilitates rather than impedes Iran's nuclear weapons program, has ended any prospect that the Security Council will pass an additional sanctions resolution against Iran in the near future. But then, in order to secure the now weakened Russian support for his sanctions resolution, Obama exempted Russia from the sanctions and turned a blind eye to continued Russian and Chinese nuclear proliferation activities in Syria, Turkey and Pakistan. Furthermore, Obama agreed to make most of the remaining provisions non-binding.
In the meantime, and in spite of the fact that his sanctions bid is in shambles, Obama has asked Congressional Democrats to stall their sanctions bills for another month. So too, Obama prevailed on his Democratic colleagues in Congress to exempt Russia and China from their sanctions bills.
As part of the administration's attempt to woo American Jews back into the Democratic fold despite its anti-Israel policies, last week a group of pre-selected pro-Obama rabbis was invited to the White House for talks with Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel and with Dan Shapiro and Dennis Ross who hold the Palestinian and Iran dossiers on Obama's National Security Council. According to a report of the meeting by Rabbi Jack Moline which has not been refuted by the White House, the three men told the Democratic rabbis that the administration has three priorities in the Middle East. First Obama seeks to isolate Iran. Second, he seeks to significantly reduce the US military presence in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. And third, he seeks to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
These priorities are disturbing for a number of reasons. First, isolating Iran is not the same as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. By characterizing its goal as "isolating" Iran, the administration makes clear that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is not its goal. Moreover, as Iran's deal with Brazil and Turkey makes abundantly clear, Iran is not isolated. Indeed, its foreign relations have prospered since Obama took office.
In his write-up of the meeting Moline indicated that Ross and Emmanuel view Obama's rejection of Israel's right to build homes for Jews in Jerusalem as motivated by his goal to isolate Iran. So in the view of Obama's Jewish advisors, his preferred method of isolating Iran is to attack Israel.
Add that to his third priority of establishing a Palestinian state by the end of next year and what you have is a US President for whom bashing Israel are his first and third priorities in the Middle East.
When one factors in his willingness to put Israel's purported nuclear arsenal on the international chopping block, it is clear that there is no precedent for Obama's hostility towards Israel in the history of US-Israel relations.
This brings us to Obama's meeting next Tuesday with Netanyahu. Obama's continued commitment to his anti-Israel policies indicate that there are two possible scenarios for next week's meeting. In the best case scenario, the meeting will have no substance whatsoever. It will be nothing more than a public display of presidential affection for the Israeli premier.
The more likely scenario is that Obama will use the meeting as an opportunity to pressure Netanyahu not to attack Iran's nuclear installations; not to attack Hizbullah's and Syria's missile depots, launchers, and silos; and to extend the prohibition on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria beyond its September deadline and expand the prohibition to Jewish home construction in Jerusalem.
In the latter scenario, it can only be hoped that Netanyahu has learned from his past experience with Obama. Last December, in the hopes of alleviating US pressure, Netanyahu announced an unprecedented ten-month ban on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria. For his efforts, Netanyahu was rewarded with an escalation of American pressure against Israel.
After he pocketed Netanyahu's concession on Judea and Samaria Obama immediately launched his poisonous assault on Israeli rights to Jerusalem.
Likewise, Netanyahu's willingness to outwardly support both Obama's effort to appease Iran and his efforts to pass anti-Iran sanctions in the Security Council gained Obama a year and a half of quiet from Jerusalem. During that time Iran has moved within months of the bomb and the US has abandoned its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This experience has one clear lesson: If Obama seeks policy concessions from Israel during their meeting, Netanyahu must reject his entreaties. In fact, it may even be counterproductive for Netanyahu to abstain from responding in the hopes of buying time.
If on the other hand, Obama avoids discussion of substantive issues and devotes his meeting with Netanyahu to a discussion of Michelle Obama's war on obesity, Netanyahu should consider what Obama did to the family of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl while the President signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act last week.
Pearl was decapitated in 2002 by jihadists in Pakistan. Among other things, his killers claimed he had no right to live because he was Jewish. At the ceremony, Obama barred Pearl's father Judea Pearl from speaking. In so doing Obama reduced Daniel Pearl's family to the status of mere props as Obama vapidly and reprehensibly proclaimed, "Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world's imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is."
This appropriation of Pearl's murder and denial of what it represented served Obama's purpose of pretending that there is no jihad and that radical Islam is not a threat to the US. And by silencing Pearl's father, the president turned him into an unwilling accomplice.
Netanyahu should take two lessons from Obama's behavior at the ceremony. First, Netanyahu must do everything he can to avoid being used as a prop. This means that he should insist on having a joint press briefing with Obama. He must also insist on having a say regarding which journalists will be included in the press pool and who will be permitted to ask the two leaders questions.
Second, Netanyahu must not become Obama's spokesman. As part of his unsuccessful bid to convince Obama to change his policies towards Israel, Netanyahu and his advisors have gone on record praising Obama for his support for Israel. These statements have stymied attempts by Israel's US supporters to pressure Obama to change those policies.
The Israeli official who has been outspoken in his praise for Obama and his denial that Obama's policies are hostile towards Israel has been Ambassador Michael Oren. Oren has repeatedly praised Obama for his supposedly firm support for Israel and commitment to Israel's security most recently in an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday. Moreover, according to eyewitness reports, in a recent closed-door meeting with American Jews, Oren criticized the Republican Party for attacking Obama for his animosity towards Israel.
This quite simply has to end. As foreign officials, Israeli diplomats should not be involved in US partisan politics. Not only should Israeli officials not give Obama undeserved praise, they should not give Republicans undeserved criticism.
At the end of the day, American Jews have the luxury of choosing between their loyalty to the Democratic Party and their support for Israel. And in the coming months, they will choose.
The Government of Israel has no such luxury. The government's only duty is to secure Israel and advance Israel's national interests in every way possible. Netanyahu must not permit Obama's public relations campaign to divert him from this mission. We and Israel are in perilous times, from our enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
05/28/2010 14:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The authors suggest Americans will have to be content to work with little fanfare or credit to attack poverty, lack of education and unequal opportunity, the root causes of radicalism in the region.
Sounds like happy horseshit to me.
And what kind of a name is "Muhammad Cohen"? Was somebody trying to be funny?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
05/28/2010 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
...yes, I have built a side-career out of mocking cultural values inferred from bygone jetsam, but I'm not trying to set up our modern ironized culture as superior just because we can't pump out happy-clappy imagery to sell soup. I kid because I love, as the saying goes. When the imagery is egregiously stupid and betrays an idea whose offensive nature should have been apparent to any civilization capable of flight and penicillin, yes, slap em. (More on this in the morn at Lint, the Institute of Official Cheer's daily blog.) But it's boring to criticize the 50s for not being as enlightened' as the 70s, or think that progress' doesn't have trade-offs. I put progress' in quotes' because the term is generally used to describe the devolution of social strictures, and while I think many such erosions had salutary effects, civilizations often mistake change for progress. Any change premised on the mutability of human nature usually ends up being a mistake. Not the mutability of people; we're quite pliable. Our natures, however, are fixed.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/28/2010 09:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The president's just-issued new national security strategy reads like a bureaucratic collection of politically approved thoughts
