Uh Oh... N. Korea troubles

Intriguing:

Quote:

Reuters: Public portraits of N Korea's Kim disappear
Tue 16 November, 2004 09:13

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Portraits of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il have been taken down from public places where they have been hanging, the Russian news agency Itar-Tass has reported from China.

Tass reported the highly unusual move on Tuesday in a dispatch from Beijing quoting an unidentified foreign diplomat reached by telephone in North Korea.

The diplomat said guests invited to official receptions in the North Korean capital Pyongyang had seen only portraits of state founder Kim Il-sung.

"Only a light rectangular spot on the yellow whitewashed wall and a nail have remained in the place where the second portrait used to be," the source said.

The diplomat said officials in the hardline communist state had offered no explanation for the change.

He added, that according to his information, a secret directive had been issued to remove portraits of Kim Jong-il.

Now, wunner what that means? Somethin's goin' on there, seemslike, don't it?

Just a perspective note on US Military Capability, a little fewer than 140,000 US Military currently are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, equal to roughly 10% of the Active Duty US Military. According to The United States Department of Defense, the Active Duty US Military Roster, excluding The US Coast Guard, totals nearly 1.4 Million personnel. The US Army currently has a bit more than 476,000 Active Duty Personnel; approximately 71,000 are Commissioned Officers and about 401,000 comprise the Enlisted Ranks. The US Navy has a bit under 380,000 Active Duty Personnel, approximately 54,000 commissioned officers and 324,000 enlisted personnel. The US Marine Corps Active Duty Roster amounts to a little over 170,000 personnel, with approximately 18,000 officers and 153,000 enlisted. The US Air Force has slightly under 360,000 Active Duty personnel, about 69,000 commissioned officers and about 288,000 enlisted members. In addition to Active Duty Personnel, there are the Reserve Components of each of the 4 primary services, and The Army and Air Force units of each State National Guard, which all taken together provide a manpower pool of slightly under 3.25 Million trained, mission-ready-on-short-notice personnel. Appoximately 179,600 Reserve and National Guard personnel were under Activation Status as of 10 November 2004, or roughly 5.5% of the available pool. (For the insanely curious, a State-by-State, Service-by-Service, Unit-by-Unit listing of Currently Deployed Reserve and National Guard is available as a PDF document HERE . The listing is updated weekly, and the presently totals well over 200 pages)

The current Force Structure of The US Military is designed to cope simultaneously with one or two regional conflicts and one major war. Contrary to the impression of some, Iraq hardly qualifies as a "Major War"; from a purely pragmatic, coldly analytic, number-crunchin' perspective, it amounts to a very large Live Fire Excersize, a training opportunity. This Nation at present, pontifications from the punditocracy and the commentariat not withstanding, is very far from a fully mobilized, war-committed military.

Militarily engaging DPRK likely would qualify, however briefly, as a "Major War", yes. But again by unemotional, informed, objective anaysis, while not toothless, DPRK is unlikely to be a powerful, capable, formidable tiger, but rather more like an admittedly respect-worthy but readily dealt-with bobcat ... not a negligible adversary, but by no means anything remotely posing significant challenge. Essentially bankrupt, the nation does field a respectable-on-paper military, but of what quality? The bulk of DPRK's military hardware is '60s and '70's era Chinese and ex-Soviet design and manufacture, or produced under indigenous license, with but a relative smattering of contemporary technology and capability.

Though the resources of DPRK have been directed quite disproportionately to her military, those resources in total are meager themselves. By and large, the North Korean Military hardware establishment consists of outmoded equipment in a dubious state of repair and readiness, whle in over a half century, the DPRK military has gained no operational combat experience. A monolithic society, DPRK fields an equally monolithic military. The officer corps is not so much a meritocracy, rewarding demonstrated ability and competence with promotion and increased responsibility, but rather more a system of political patronage, in which both tenure and promotion track chiefly are functions of ideologic reliability. There is no reason to assume some of the DPRK military would not fight with valor, tenacity, and intense devotion, no doubt some, perhaps many, would. None the less, the decisive, relatively rapid defeat of the DPRK military, at relatively, if not even remarkably, low Own Force personnel cost, is a mathematical given even if the civilian cost, both North and South Korean, measured in lives and by damage to physical infrastructure, well could be, even likely would be, all but unimagineably horrendous.

In short, for those folks who think Iraq was an example of a major war, or definitive of US military capability, think again; you ain't seen nothin' yet. Perhaps some comfort may be drawn from the not unreasonable assumption that the folks pullin' the strings in DPRK realize this.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

So they'd get nuked and then left to try and cope on their own?
Brilliant.
America will definitely get support from the world on that one.

America no longer considers support from the rest of the world or the consequences to the rest of the world in their decision making beth, or had you missed the memo? :wink:

Our new motto? In God We Trust....F*#k The World.....(unless they have oil )

0 Replies

Truthfully, I'm not so worried about what might happen in an attack, an invasion, a bombing, whatever. Worried, in that I don't ever want to see more people killed, but not WORRIED. I'm more concerned about the aftermath.

Planning for after the attack, well, it doesn't look like it's a strong suit of the U.S. government. I'm concerned that more of my National Guard friends are going to be called up - to do things they have no idea of how to handle. Things they aren't prepared to be exposed to.

Interesting about possible changes in North Korea.

timber - is there a reason your posts look like they've been translated from German? The capitalization gives a peculiarly non-English effect.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Bill, that was the most cartoonish geopolitical scenario I have seen in recent times. The scenario you propose is beyond most "worst case scenarios" and it takes something special to actually propose the worst case scenario as any type of solution or response.

Thankfully, even the most hawkish people in power in the US have much more sense than that.

[/b][/color]

with the appointment of Condi Rice I wouldn't be so sure.....there is NO moderate voice close to bush.....

0 Replies

Timberlandko:

You're absolutely right that the U.S. has the capability to defeat the DPRK, if that's what you're implying. The real question would be the costs and consequences of such a military venture. Even as a "paper tiger," the DPRK has enough raw firepower to annihilate some of the most populous cities in the world (many of which happen to be likely targets in close proximity to N. Korea).

"Winning" is only one part of a military scenario--every other part would be dire and tragic. In other words, I find discussions about the comparative strengths of the U.S. and DPRK military to be purely academic. We would clearly win, but at a totally unreasonable and unacceptable cost (to the tune of millions of civilian casualties) to the world, and our allies. The likely consequences preempt any serious considerations of an invasion.

That other bit of information on the potentially waning influence of Kim Jong Il is extremely interesting. Let's hope for the best.

0 Replies

Sometimes its clumsy typin', ehBeth, and other times , as in "Own Force", for instance, its because such phrases are considered and treated as being composed of proper nouns by the stylistic norms of the source material and personal correspondence from which I draw ... a habit thing, I guess.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill, that was the most cartoonish geopolitical scenario I have seen in recent times. The scenario you propose is beyond most "worst case scenarios" and it takes something special to actually propose the worst case scenario as any type of solution or response.

Thankfully, even the most hawkish people in power in the US have much more sense than that.
[/b][/color]

with the appointment of Condi Rice I wouldn't be so sure.....there is NO moderate voice close to bush.....

Rice is not nearly that stupid. For all the talk by the more passionate lefties here, the administration officials usually are more moderate and make more sense than the more passionate righties here.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Does the U.S. have any troops to spare for a conflict with North Korea?
North Korea isn't a "need for troops" situation. This one calls for an emense decapitation strike, at any cost, followed within seconds by crippling blows to every known military installation... then calling swiftly for a cease-fire which will presumably be a nuclear standoff where NK chooses to hurt others, with the one or two atomic weapons they may have left-> and be annihilated or surrender. Additional troops, IMHO, would be more of a liability than anything else.

For starters, the "one or two nukes," in addition to the enormous amount of artillery, conventional weaponry, and chemical weapons would be more than adequate to level both Seoul and any other Korean city of the NK's choice (or perhaps a Japanese city, like Tokyo) http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/NK/Chemical/ . Seoul has about 10M people, and Tokyo about 12M. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul. As NK only has about 22M (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html), gains for the "starving North Koreans" that seem to motivate you (assuming they survive) would be more than offset by losses to two of our close allies.

Thanks for the interesting link. You may have noticed that it, like me doubts the existence of very much high grade Chemical WMD. Their quantity of conventional weaponry is indeed enormous. Nukes, if they indeed have any that are ready for primetime; I believe we can probably locate and destroy all but perhaps one or two with the initial strike. I do not claim to have any expertise at military planning, so I will not waste a lot of your time or mine arguing specifics in strategy.

That being said; I do believe you underestimate the ability of the United States to wage war. I'll remind you that the actions we've taken part in recently have probably sharpened some of out skills, but a whole lot of our weaponry is probably entirely too deadly to have been used.

I also think you overestimate the North Korean's willingness to take actions that would ensure their annihilation. Kim Jong Il has been described as crazy by no one who's met him to my knowledge. I do believe that President Bush has the credibility necessary for our negotiators to convince Kim that he isn't joking. An ultimatum that unfettered decommissioning of all WMD or certain destruction may very well be accepted. Yes it's risky. But so too is the alternative. There is no safe choices here. What guarantee did we have that the Soviets would back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Considering the globalization we've experienced since then, is this really all that different?

Steppenwolf wrote:

We would also invite a disastrous Chinese response.

I have absolutely no doubt that China would stand down. That horror would devastate us stateside but again they would be annihilated. China and Russia may very well be pissed but not that pissed.

Steppenwolf wrote:

This is not true. I've been playing this tune for many years and I've read extensively on the subject. I believe Kim would back down. Especially now that Bush has shown that he doesn't give a damn about international consensus. If, and this is a big if, he could somehow bribe Putin into seconding his plays (instead of just Tony), I think every one of these despotic pieces of sh!t would be more than willing to comply with reasonable demands. That would be a better show but militarily; there is really nothing that an "international coalition" can do that the United States can't do alone. I've compared all the numbers and our Defense Department really is that strong.

If you don't like my solution, what would you suggest as an alternative? Surely we can't allow Kim to continue building Nukes?

ehBeth wrote:

So they'd get nuked and then left to try and cope on their own?
Brilliant.
America will definitely get support from the world on that one.

I seriously doubt anyone would get Nuked. If it were necessary, it would be the tactical variety at least... not the big one.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Bill, that was the most cartoonish geopolitical scenario I have seen in recent times. The scenario you propose is beyond most "worst case scenarios" and it takes something special to actually propose the worst case scenario as any type of solution or response.

LOL Craven. I guess I should have clarified that that was the worst case scenario should our ultimatum be ignored. You've seen this before.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill, that was the most cartoonish geopolitical scenario I have seen in recent times. The scenario you propose is beyond most "worst case scenarios" and it takes something special to actually propose the worst case scenario as any type of solution or response.

Thankfully, even the most hawkish people in power in the US have much more sense than that.
[/b][/color]

with the appointment of Condi Rice I wouldn't be so sure.....there is NO moderate voice close to bush.....

Rice is not nearly that stupid. For all the talk by the more passionate lefties here, the administration officials usually are more moderate and make more sense than the more passionate righties here.

I agree with you there but my fear is the swallowing of the theocratic rule
that is beginning to be thrown around...even the most brilliant are not immune to religious fanatacism...this is my greatest fear for the direction of our country and how all policy will be decided......

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thanks for the interesting link. You may have noticed that it, like me doubts the existence of very much high grade Chemical WMD. Their quantity of conventional weaponry is indeed enormous. Nukes, if they indeed have any that are ready for primetime; I believe we can probably locate and destroy all but perhaps one or two with the initial strike. I do not claim to have any expertise at military planning, so I will not waste a lot of your time or mine arguing specifics in strategy.

That being said; I do believe you underestimate the ability of the United States to wage war. I'll remind you that the actions we've taken part in recently have probably sharpened some of out skills, but a whole lot of our weaponry is probably entirely too deadly to have been used.

I also think you overestimate the North Korean's willingness to take actions that would ensure their annihilation. Kim Jong Il has been described as crazy by no one who's met him to my knowledge. I do believe that President Bush has the credibility necessary for our negotiators to convince Kim that he isn't joking. An ultimatum that unfettered decommissioning of all WMD or certain destruction may very well be accepted. Yes it's risky. But so too is the alternative. There is no safe choices here. What guarantee did we have that the Soviets would back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Considering the globalization we've experienced since then, is this really all that different?

Yes, this is totally different. The DPRK and its leadership are totally opaque to U.S. intelligence--N. Korean is literally a black spot. This wasn't the case with the U.S.S.R., and much of our strategy was based on actual ground-level knowledge about the likely reactions of the Soviet leadership. By all accounts, Kim Jong Il is at least rumored to be insane and capricious; I doubt that your personal understanding of this man is great enough to ignore that possibility (likelihood?). The possibility of WMD use by the DPRK cannot be overstated considering our limited knowledge of their leadership. The risk simply isn't worth it.

Finally, as I said in my post to Timberlandko, I do not underestimate the US' military power. I'm fully confident in our 'success,' but I doubt that the consequences of such a venture would be palatable.

My alternative? I think a coup is possible or likely given the right circumstances and the cooperation of key players. Kim Jong-Il was never idolized to the extent that his father was, and his ultimate leadership may be cast into question if the U.S. can persuade China to lend its full weight to Kim's removal. China may be the only country with any ties whatsoever to DPRK's leadership and military. It is also in China's interest to avert a crisis in N. Korea, particularly as their relations with the US and the rest of the DPRK's enemies will determine the fate or their economy (and hence China's ultimate stability). I think that we should pursue whatever Chinese options we have to promote a peaceful (or largely peaceful) removal of Kim Jong-Il. Furthermore, China is the only country with any meaningful "carrots and sticks," as they are the only real trading partner to N. Korea, and they donate huge sums of food to that country. We might have some "sticks" with regards to our military, but such a solution involves far too many risks. We need China to pressure the North Korean military to take action against the dictator that has ruined their country. As for the U.S., we can pressure China and threaten N. Korea to a limited extent (and I think we should), but I do not think that we should actually go to war with N. Korea under the present circumstances.

0 Replies

DPRK Capabilities. Here we are again discussing the DPRK. The DPRK has one of the worlds largest military estabilishments, especially in comparison to its size. It has the largest Special Forces organization in the world, and they are very tough soldiers. long-range artillery is within range of Seoul (about 25 miles from the DMZ), and the bulk of their army is in hardened bunkers massed on, or very near the DMZ. Incursions from the North into the South have over the years been common, and a very large fifth column exists in the South. The North's primary strength is in its infantry battalions, and only a portion of them are mechanized. Their armored divisions are equipped with obsolete Soviet, and Soviet designed tanks that have been shown very vulnerable on the battlefield. The DPRK Navy is almost a joke. It consists of relatively small, lightly armed surface vessels with limited operational range, and a small fleet of conventional submarines ... again from the Soviets, or built from Soviet designs. The air forces consist of a obsolete soviet aircraft, and the pilots are very poorly trained compared to most modern military establishments. They have a reasonably large number of short and medium range missiles, similar to the familiar SCUDs. The longest range missiles that have been tested can strike Japan, Okinawa, and parts of Russia and China.

The DPRK probably does have 3-6 nuclear weapons, though they probably are relatively crude compared to those produced by the US and the old USSR. These are probably nuclear, not thermonuclear devices, and have never been tested. Delivery systems are their major problem. The North has no manned bombers capable of delivering nuclear munitions even so near as Japan. A nuclear device could be delivered disguised as innocent cargo by sea, but the DPRK hasn't much of a merchant marine and it is closely monitored. No DPRK missile has yet been tested or made operational that is capable of reaching across the wide Pacific. It is possible that some missiles in their inventory might be able to mount a nuclear warhead.

Counter-Force Structure. Facing the DPRK across the DMZ is a large and reasonably well equipped and trained ROK army. Some units are very good, and others, especially those make up primarily of conscripts, may not be terribly reliable. The Korean War has never officially ended, but most Korean troops both in the North and the South have never been tested in battle. The area south of the DMZ, especially the approaches to Seoul, have been prepared for battle for over fifty years. Kill-zones are well established, and artillery is preregistered. An invasion south would have to pass through some of the most deadly fire zones ever designed.

Backing up the ROK, is an American contingeunt currently about 30,000 strong. These troops know that they are inside a dangerous area, and are constantly being trained to perform their mission. Their primary mission is to hold any invasion force at bay, while other US assets are brought into play. The USAF, if called on would quickly gain air superiority, and initiate a strategic bombing campaign. The US Carrier Battle Group operating in the Far Pacific would be a part of the effort to achieve air superiority, and other US naval assets would destroy the enemy navy. The USMC has a large contingeunt based on Okinawa, and they would be transhipped to Korea very quickly.

The North has other problems with mounting an invasion. Their natural resources and logistics are not sufficient to maintain a high combat tempo for more that a very short period. Without fuel, their mechanized forces won't work. Their ammunition stocks may be large, but they are useless if they can't be delivered in a timely fashion to the infantry soldier. Combat operations in Korea are very sensitive to the season and weather. This is a very mountainous country where roads are often narrow and easily blocked. During the rainy seasons mud can virtually swallow a tank. Strange as it seems, the winter may be the best timetable for a DPRK invasion while the ground is frozen solid.

The DPRK is nuclear capable, but would they escalate to nuclear? What do they gain by striking Japan, Okinawa, or ROK targets? Nuke an American Marine base or Carrier Group, and the result would be the likely unleashing of the US nuclear arsenal on the North. Actually, the number of targets inside the DPRK that are nuclear worthy is very limited. If the DPRK were to launch a nuclear strike against Russia or China, they would destroy their only POSSIBLE allies. Such an attack on Japan, would consolidate the world against the DPRK and make their victory even less likely.

What are Kim and his cronies highest goals? First, is survival of the Kim Dynasty as absolute ruler over North Korea. Nothing is of higher importance to Kim. Second, the eventual consolidation of the the Korean Peninsula, but only if the country is subject to the Kim Dynasty and its Stalinist style government. Every other action is subordinate to those two goals.

The danger of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula are much lower today than they were two years ago. A strong message was delivered to Kim when the US took Saddam Hussein down. With Bush re-elected, Kim will be very leery of pushing too hard. At this time, it is enough to keep the pressure on him and let time do its thing.

Those who think the US military afraid of engaging the DPRK, are in dream land. Civilian casualties in Seoul would probably be high, and that is of special concern to us personally with grandchildren living north of the Han. A renewal of hostilities would mean the end of the DPRK.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

Yes, this is totally different. The DPRK and its leadership are totally opaque to U.S. intelligence--N. Korean is literally a black spot. This wasn't the case with the U.S.S.R., and much of our strategy was based on actual ground-level knowledge about the likely reactions of the Soviet leadership. By all accounts, Kim Jong Il is at least rumored to be insane and capricious; I doubt that your personal understanding of this man is great enough to ignore that possibility (likelihood?). The possibility of WMD use by the DPRK cannot be overstated considering our limited knowledge of their leadership. The risk simply isn't worth it.

I would certainly accept the possibility that he's nuts but I don't think it probable. Let me qualify that: I think he knows the difference between right and wrong and that his behavior shows an inclination towards self-preservation. I don't think he's normal, by any definition, but I've seen no evidence he's lost his ability to reason. As we started finishing the attack phase in Iraq... he rather suddenly changed his tune and decided it was time to sit down for Multi-Lateral talks. This, his newspaper had said not that long before, he would never do.

Bush's re-election, I can only assume, sent a tremor of fear down Kim's spine. He would probably agree that with me that he'd have little to fear from a Kerry administration. That the American public decided to stick with that crazy cowboy, who thumbs his nose at the world, while wielding the biggest guns man kind has ever known, can't sit well with any of the world's despots. I'm sure they all watched Saddam Hussein go from being the 6 BILLION DOLLAR MAN to being the caged and condemned animal he is now. Hell, if everyone in the civilized world is afraid of what Bush might do, how do you suppose the uncivilized feel?

Steppenwolf wrote:

Finally, as I said in my post to Timberlandko, I do not underestimate the US' military power. I'm fully confident in our 'success,' but I doubt that the consequences of such a venture would be palatable.

I didn't think you underestimated our ability to win. I think everyone knows that if the whole world declared war on us the best they could hope for is a draw. Our difference in opinion is in how quickly and effectively we could limit Kim's response... if indeed we even had to.

Steppenwolf wrote:

My alternative? I think a coup is possible or likely given the right circumstances and the cooperation of key players. Kim Jong-Il was never idolized to the extent that his father was, and his ultimate leadership may be cast into question if the U.S. can persuade China to lend its full weight to Kim's removal. China may be the only country with any ties whatsoever to DPRK's leadership and military. It is also in China's interest to avert a crisis in N. Korea, particularly as their relations with the US and the rest of the DPRK's enemies will determine the fate or their economy (and hence China's ultimate stability). I think that we should pursue whatever Chinese options we have to promote a peaceful (or largely peaceful) removal of Kim Jong-Il. Furthermore, China is the only country with any meaningful "carrots and sticks," as they are the only real trading partner to N. Korea, and they donate huge sums of food to that country. We might have some "sticks" with regards to our military, but such a solution involves far too many risks. We need China to pressure the North Korean military to take action against the dictator that has ruined their country. As for the U.S., we can pressure China and threaten N. Korea to a limited extent (and I think we should), but I do not think that we should actually go to war with N. Korea under the present circumstances.

I love the China/Coup option but I think it would have happened by now if it was going to... but who knows. Maybe Condi can convince the Chinese that Bush-the-Terrible will do something rash if they don't find a way to act first. Smile

Still, I think it 100 times more likely if Bush turns up the heat. I think he has to on both North Korea and Iran... or we're going to find ourselves a couple of decades from now in another cold war... if we're lucky. Yes, the stakes are high... but not as high as they used to be. And, not as high as they will be next year or the year after that etc... if we don't act.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I love the China/Coup option but I think it would have happened by now if it was going to... but who knows. Maybe Condi can convince the Chinese that Bush-the-Terrible will do something rash if they don't find a way to act first. Still, I think it 100 times more likely if Bush turns up the heat. I think he has to on both North Korea and Iran... or we're going to find ourselves a couple of decades from now in another cold war... if we're lucky. Yes, the stakes are high... but not as high as they used to be. And, not as high as they will be next year or the year after that etc... if we don't act.

Fair enough. I don't mind turning up the heat on Iran and North Korea as long as we're careful to evaluate the consequences and costs of military action. Smile

Despite my belief that Bush has bungled his own "Bush Doctrine" and our subsequent reconstruction efforts, I should note for the record that I support aggressive policy and preemption when used in a rational, empirically-based manner. I'm simply not convinced that North Korea provides a good target at the present.

Back to Timberlandko's article, which made me squirm with (premature?) hope and joy, the NY Times has added some additional insight to evolving conditions in DPRK. It's a very interesting situation.

Quote:

TOKYO, Nov. 16 - Portraits of North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, have been quietly taken down this fall in important institutions in the country's capital, Pyongyang, several diplomats there say.

Analysts are debating the reasons, with explanations that range from a demotion of North Korea's "Dear Leader" to a simple desire to place the portraits in more ornate frames.

In a country where the cult of the Kim family is a primary binding force, people have been sent to prison for failing to dust their leader's portrait or for allowing ink drops to blot his image in a newspaper. A woman who died trying to rescue Kim family portraits from a burning school was elevated by the state-controlled media to national hero.

But according to reports from Pyongyang by the Itar-Tass news agency and an ambassador in the capital, guests at recent Foreign Ministry receptions have seen only portraits of Mr. Kim's father, Kim Il Sung, a former anti-Japanese guerrilla leader who founded North Korea in 1945.

"Only a light rectangular spot on the yellow whitewashed wall and a nail have remained in the place where the second portrait used to be," the Itar-Tass correspondent said of the People's Palace of Culture.

Separately, a European ambassador in Pyongyang has told his country's ambassador in South Korea that he started noticing last month that Kim Jong Il portraits that had been displayed outside some schools and other institutions in Pyongyang were now gone, the Seoul-based ambassador said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

"One possible explanation is some shift of power, a weakening of the position of Dear Leader, who has not been seen in public for some time," the ambassador in Seoul said. "But I wouldn't bet on any explanation."

There has been no official reaction from North Korea to the reports. But a North Korean diplomat in Moscow was quoted Tuesday by Itar-Tass as saying: "This is false information, lies. Can the sun be removed from the sky? It is not possible."

Also on Tuesday, the North's official Korea Central News Agency broke a silence of several days on Mr. Kim's doings and said he had visited a military unit, though it did not say when or where.

A Western aid worker in Pyongyang said by telephone Tuesday that traffic there was normal and that the airport was operating as usual.

"I have been in anywhere from 7 to 10 schools, hospitals and orphanages in the last 10 days, and there were portraits of the father and son in every one," he said of his visits to places outside the capital.

In Tokyo, analysts at Radiopress, a Japanese news agency that monitors the North Korean news media, were mystified.

"To me, it does not look like a coup d'état," said a senior analyst who asked not to be identified. "But somehow, the images have been removed in an orderly way."

In Seoul, a government intelligence analyst reported that in recent days North Korea's state radio had shifted one catch phrase from "Kim Jong Il, ruling according to the Kim Il Sung legacy" to simply "Ruling by Kim Il Sung."

Known for his bouffant hairstyle and idiosyncratically styled beige suits, the 63-year-old Mr. Kim is a rare beneficiary of dynastic succession in the Communist world. As a loyal and ambitious son, he created the personality cult that elevated his father to godlike status in the 1970's. In the 1980's, he started to run the country from behind the scenes, consolidating his power after his father's death in 1994.

But after nearly six decades of Kim clan rule and omnipresent state controls, North Korea lags behind its neighbors. During the mid-1990's, bad weather, the collapse of Soviet-style farming and bureaucratic paralysis combined to create a famine that foreign aid groups estimate killed about two million people.

But without multiparty elections to worry about and a secret police force, the Kim family has been able to lead a luxurious existence, shuttling in Mercedes-Benz convoys between secluded guest houses, and enjoying imported food and wine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/international/asia/17korea.html

My, oh my...

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill, that was the most cartoonish geopolitical scenario I have seen in recent times. The scenario you propose is beyond most "worst case scenarios" and it takes something special to actually propose the worst case scenario as any type of solution or response.

Thankfully, even the most hawkish people in power in the US have much more sense than that.
[/b][/color]

with the appointment of Condi Rice I wouldn't be so sure.....there is NO moderate voice close to bush.....

Rice is not nearly that stupid. For all the talk by the more passionate lefties here, the administration officials usually are more moderate and make more sense than the more passionate righties here.

That is fer sure, thank goddess. We've had people here wanting to nuke Afghanistan - (to kill Bin Laden), nuke North Korea, exterminate one of the groups in the Balkans, and- as far as I can tell - genocide for Muslims. (I am not 100% sure on that last one). And that is just what is wanted for the furriners!

I believe a call has been made for the destruction of the Democratic Party, for fire and brimstone for gays - and - worst of all - I think someone said polar bears can just snuff it for all he cares.

Be grateful, BPB! You have kindly tree-huggin' progressives in the White House, compared with some of your playmates here.

Dammit, I could almost hug them! (The White House folk, I mean.)

0 Replies

"TOKYO, Nov. 16 - Portraits of North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, have been quietly taken down this fall in important institutions in the country's capital, Pyongyang, several diplomats there say."

Man - in the old days in the USSR that would mean you were dead, or fallene from power, or certainly the subject of a coup, or something!

I hope it is not just for cleaning...any ideas on succession, if Kim IS in trouble??

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Bill, that was the most cartoonish geopolitical scenario I have seen in recent times. The scenario you propose is beyond most "worst case scenarios" and it takes something special to actually propose the worst case scenario as any type of solution or response.

Thankfully, even the most hawkish people in power in the US have much more sense than that.
[/b][/color]

with the appointment of Condi Rice I wouldn't be so sure.....there is NO moderate voice close to bush.....

Rice is not nearly that stupid. For all the talk by the more passionate lefties here, the administration officials usually are more moderate and make more sense than the more passionate righties here.

That is fer sure, thank goddess. We've had people here wanting to nuke Afghanistan - (to kill Bin Laden), nuke North Korea, exterminate one of the groups in the Balkans, and- as far as I can tell - genocide for Muslims. (I am not 100% sure on that last one). And that is just what is wanted for the furriners!

I believe a call has been made for the destruction of the Democratic Party, for fire and brimstone for gays - and - worst of all - I think someone said polar bears can just snuff it for all he cares.

Be grateful, BPB! You have kindly tree-huggin' progressives in the White House, compared with some of your playmates here.

Dammit, I could almost hug them! (The White House folk, I mean.)

That's like passing on the bullshit plate for the horseshit plate....either way it's **** for dinner....

0 Replies

Well, clearly, America can "afford" the manpower to support an armed conflict in N. Korea, but can the floundering economy (excluding the "war industries"), and insurmountable personal and national debt loads handle such an ongoing battle?
How about strained international relations? Is there enough firepower in the American propaganda machine to make, not only Americans, but the world, support their cause beyond the impressions America has historically left as a result of their involvement in international crises?

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Well, clearly, America can "afford" the manpower to support an armed conflict in N. Korea, but can the floundering economy (excluding the "war industries"), and insurmountable personal and national debt loads handle such an ongoing battle?
How about strained international relations? Is there enough firepower in the American propaganda machine to make, not only Americans, but the world, support their cause beyond the impressions America has historically left as a result of their involvement in international crises?

And therein lies the problem with too many Anti-War folks. Kim Jong Il has murdered Millions... yet you would label it propaganda if we described him for what he is.

Meanwhile, they're now breaking down, in detail, exactly how Saddam Stole over 20 billion dollars and used it in part to cut paychecks to the families of fallen terrorists for their heroic actions. Yet the Anti-War crowd continues to insist he didn't sponsor terrorism As we get closer to the truth of just how deep the UN corruption goes, Kofi Annan continues to stonewall the investigation.

Yes, Bush over-sold the war. But that does absolutely nothing to exonerate Saddam, Kim, or any other despot with such low regard for human dignity.

(This is where I usually hear a belated, begrudged condemnation of Saddam and Kim, followed by some weak attempt at comparing our actions to theirs or someone will point out how many other fiends are getting away with similar behavior. Always, with seemingly no recognition that our apathy over the last decade is indirectly responsible for MILLIONS of deaths, and is the reason our security is once again on the decline.)

Btw Candidone1, welcome to A2K! That wasn't so much directed at you as it was some of the snooty condesending people here.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
Well, clearly, America can "afford" the manpower to support an armed conflict in N. Korea, but can the floundering economy (excluding the "war industries"), and insurmountable personal and national debt loads handle such an ongoing battle?
How about strained international relations? Is there enough firepower in the American propaganda machine to make, not only Americans, but the world, support their cause beyond the impressions America has historically left as a result of their involvement in international crises?
And therein lies the problem with too many Anti-War folks. Kim Jong Il has murdered Millions... yet you would label it propaganda if we described him for what he is.

Meanwhile, they're now breaking down, in detail, exactly how Saddam Stole over 20 billion dollars and used it in part to cut paychecks to the families of fallen terrorists for their heroic actions. Yet the Anti-War crowd continues to insist he didn't sponsor terrorism As we get closer to the truth of just how deep the UN corruption goes, Kofi Annan continues to stonewall the investigation.

Yes, Bush over-sold the war. But that does absolutely nothing to exonerate Saddam, Kim, or any other despot with such low regard for human dignity.

(This is where I usually hear a belated, begrudged condemnation of Saddam and Kim, followed by some weak attempt at comparing our actions to theirs or someone will point out how many other fiends are getting away with similar behavior. Always, with seemingly no recognition that our apathy over the last decade is indirectly responsible for MILLIONS of deaths, and is the reason our security is once again on the decline.)

Sure, but these anti-war arguments are straw men. Yes, the "we've done worse" and "Kim and Saddam aren't so bad" arguments are occasionally made (adding little to the discussion), but the real argument, the one that should actually guide our policy, is based on costs and benefits. It's not enough that a ruling tyrant is horrible; we must also establish that military action would improve the situation without leading to undue adverse consequences within the country in question or other countries (including our own). That's just simple rationality, and it merits looking at the economic costs, as alluded to be candidone, and the costs in terms of stability and collateral damage (both of which would be HUGE in a war scenario with North Korea).

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

Sure, but these anti-war arguments are straw men. Yes, the "we've done worse" and "Kim and Saddam aren't so bad" arguments are occasionally made (adding little to the discussion), but the real argument, the one that should actually guide our policy, is based on costs and benefits. It's not enough that a ruling tyrant is horrible; we must also establish that military action would improve the situation without leading to undue adverse consequences within the country in question or other countries (including our own). That's just simple rationality, and it merits looking at the economic costs, as alluded to be candidone, and the costs in terms of stability and collateral damage (both of which would be HUGE in a war scenario with North Korea).

I agree, Steppenwolf. I have little doubt we could afford to foot the bill, economically speaking (I agree that our finances are a disaster but our economy is so enormous it could sustain this, too.) We've proven that world opinion doesn't rank high on our list of priorities (I wish Bush said it better, but agree with what he's said.) It was candidone1's final question that I took issue with.

Quote:

Is there enough firepower in the American propaganda machine to make, not only Americans, but the world, support their cause beyond the impressions America has historically left as a result of their involvement in international crises?

I'm repulsed by the suggestion that it requires propaganda to vilify the likes of Kim and Saddam. History will place both of these fiends at the bottom of the human race where they belong, and not one lie or exaggeration will be required to establish their rank there.

0 Replies

Uh Oh... N. Korea troubles

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know