KRC

Says the guy who posted nothing of substance regarding Buckley's comments and just attacked the posters.

I agree on the shiney factor, but black is more of a winter color. Brushed nickel is always nice with summer outfits.

Multi-tools are quite nice. You just need to make sure you buy a good one. None of that cheap crap, which makes your outfit look gaudy.

I am pro-active in my community and I support a pro-active foreign policy, if the situation calls for it. When I see a problem (or something that could become a problem), I try to fix it. I am a member of a couple historical associations, working to preserve history and historical landmarks. I am a member of the Youth Aid Panel with my local police department. I am also an elected official in my township. I have regular contact with my state rep and have written legislation to fix things that I see are problems.

Are bayonets in this season or is that more of a fall accessory?

Does a shoulder holster go with web gear, or are you stuck with the more traditional belt holster?

Agree on the first point, strongly disagree on the second. First point: there is no question we do not have the capabilities for military action at this time. That does not, however, prevent us from talking about possible options. Since diplomacy is working, there is no need to advance things to the military options. Second Point: I strongly disagree about progress with the multi-lateral talks. When they first started, the partners were not all fully on board. They saw it as more bluster from the Bush administration. Now, all partners are on the same page regarding the goals. The problem now is how to achieve those goals. The ROK seems to be the last holdout regarding getting tougher with the DPRK. The rest of the partners have grown tired of the DPRK and want to step things up a little (even China). Long-term solutions take time. The process has been moving in a positive direction for a while now and real progress is being made. Just because no deal has been signed does not mean that real substance has not been achieved.

Since I have been called both: Like: The way he is dealing with the North Korea situation. Don't Like: Spending. If you are going to cut taxes, cut spending. I know the president is not in charge of the money, but he could use a veto (at least one would be nice). He gave up too quickly on the Social Security thingy. The Democrats proved that they are not concerned with fixing the issue. Pressure them into at least providing a counter proposal so dialog can begin.

How do you properly accessorize camo?

Therein lies a contradiction. Here is the exact wording of Article 9: On its face, having the forces is a violation of the Constitution (at least Article 9). I know that there is a movement afoot to change this, but just maintaining any sort of military force is a violation of their constitution. Their Supreme Court said that they can maintain a "self-defense" force, but not everyone is buying that interpretation. As far as the blockade and freezing assets, that is plausible and highly probable. They will have the U.S. make any sort of military gestures.

That is always a possibility. Something small. More to provoke than to create a lot of damage.

I thought it was something like that, but I was not sure. There is no problem selling it to the DPRK populous. They have already bought into the rhetoric about the Japanese and the U.S. being monsters. The ROK is a different story. While there is the hatred of the Japanese, I do not see them buying into a Japanese pre-emptive attack on the DPRK. They would buy a U.S. pre-emptive attack, but not Japanese. China is a different animal. They know that Japan would not strike first. The problem is convincing them that the U.S. did not order the strike. I would think that we would consult with China before launching any attack and I think the Chinese know that. Once the stuff is in the air, though, all bets are off and it is going to get pretty ugly.

If all KJI needed to do was convince the North Koreans, he could have attacked years ago. The problem he has is convincing countries like China that he needs to launch the attack.

They could attempt to claim Japanese assault, but how many people are going to buy it? The Japanese position on non-preemption would be a tough sell to the outside world. I know that some members of the Japanese Parliament want to change that and increase the Japanese military capabilities, but that would require a constitutional change, correct?

How?

Depends on if an attack is also going on simultaneously with the ROK. If it is just Japan, they will use the same model in attacking them as they do with the ROK. Send SF in early to disable stuff, then lob in a crapload of missiles. You just wouldn't have the million troops going through the tunnels and the tanks crossing the border. I see it as mainly missiles and SF strikes. I think that there are others here who could answer that question better than I. I am more focused on the political aspects.

Pretty frightening, isn't it?

KJI already knows that his economy is in the crapper. He has gone out of his way to give extra (more than usual) to the military to keep them loyal in light of this. He knows that he needs the backing of the military in order for him to hold his power (which is why Jul seems like the more plausible heir to the leadership role). Expect KJI to divert even more to the military. If he feels he is losing control, I would not be shocked to see him strike somewhere (like Japan). This keeps the military occupied with other things.

Sounds like they are having a review of the review. Of course, if this one lasts only 44 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes, people will still B word that the government did not drag things out long enough. It is nice to see, however, all of the politicians playing CYA and backtracking from their original statements.

There is no question that China's opinion matters to KJI. The problem arises as he gets closer to the end of his life. At that point, he may say "screw it" and do what he wants to do, since he (and his father) have basically been living under Chinese authority as long as they have been in power. IMO, KJI believes that China would not support sanctions against a DPRK-led re-unified Korea. I do, however, feel that the economy would be devastated even with China and a few Chinese allies trading with them. There is no way they will be able to make up what they will be losing from the UN, U.S. and what the ROK was giving them. Remember, all of the income the ROK is sending them was generated with the ROK political system and economic system. That would cease to exist with DPRK rule.

Yup.

Not that I know of. They are just starting to get missile defense systems from the U.S. They are pretty vulnerable to a DPRK attack right now. The ROK is a little better prepared, but they would still be devastated before they could mount an attack. I think I remember you mentioning that you were stationed in Korea at one time. As you know, Seoul is not that far from the border. With the congestion in that city, initial strikes could take out thousands in no time at all. 10-20K dead is not out of possibility for the first few hours.

There is always the possibility. If faced with a collapsed DPRK and a re-unified Korea under ROK rule, there is no question that they would support the ROK. I think that they want a smooth transition, though. For the ROK to just immediately assume control would be bad. They need the DPRK to gradually move to a free-market system, and change the juche and Songun attitudes that prevail. This is not something that can (nor should) be done quickly, but there is also not that much time. We have a wild-card in who will take over for the aging KJI. Capture Seoul, Daejeon and Pusan and the country is basically yours. Just taking out Seoul would not guarantee you the country. It is an obvious moral victory and a severe blow to the ROK, but it would not mean the end. Continue and capture Daejeon and Pusan and you have it. Of course, I would defer to Bib and CTM on this. Sanctions would definitely be applied, but probably not through the UN, thereby negating China's influence on those sanctions. I am having a little trouble understanding what you are trying to say here. Could you restate it? Are you talking about China coming on board with sanctions, or at least KJI thinking China would support sanctions?

There is no question that they cannot win in the end, but they will do a hell of a lot of damage in the meantime.

You are absolutely correct. There is no way China will allow a war with Japan. China does not want any military action at all by the DPRK, which includes a military takeover of the ROK. If the DPRK invades the ROK, then I see no reason why they wouldn't attack Japan as well. Even if it is just lobbing a few goodies towards Japan during the invasion of the ROK. Diversion for the U.S. Which is the main target: Japan or the ROK?