SKorea, US Begin Drills as NKorea Threatens War

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-ABC

By HYUNG-JIN KIM Associated Press

SEOUL, South Korea

South Korea and the United States began annual military drills Monday despite North Korean threats to respond by voiding the armistice that ended the Korean War and launching a nuclear attack on the U.S.

After the start of the drills, South Korean officials said their northern counterparts didn't answer two calls on a hotline between the sides, apparently following through on an earlier vow to cut the communication channel because of the drills.

Pyongyang has launched a bombast-filled propaganda campaign against the drills, which involve 10,000 South Korean and about 3,000 American troops, and last week's U.N. vote to impose new sanctions over the North's Feb. 12 nuclear test. Analysts believe that much of that campaign is meant to shore up loyalty among citizens and the military for North Korea's young leader, Kim Jong Un.

Pyongyang isn't believed to be able to build a warhead small enough to mount on a long-range missile, and the North's military has repeatedly vowed in the past to scrap the 1953 armistice. North Korea wants a formal peace treaty, security guarantees and other concessions, as well as the removal of 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/skorea-us-begin-drills-amid-nkorean-nuke-threat-18699172

[Wilms]

1. Given the opening paragraph, the headline should read.

NKorea Threatens War as SKorea, US Begin Drills

But that's the AP for you.

Another example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022477867

[Adsos Letter]

4. Good catch; the wording makes it sound like the drills are a response to N. Korean threats.

Sentence structure matters.

[joshcryer]

8. North Korea tested a thermonuclear device.

[Whoopdedoo]

2. ooh! Feel the trash talk

Is getting hyped a bit by the tumultuous North Koreans? Led by the old guard who has a shiny new object in leader Un. A frigging child?
Oh wait a second ... we are actually going after Iran who isn't close to making a bomb.
But North Korea has set of two so far and they are coming into focus of late. Those crazies are frantically trying to attach their nuke on rockets that went undetected. Are they too close to China or something ... that we worry about Iran?
This is the same bullshit I saw and yelled about with others to the build up and ultimate war with Iraq.
The force of the Military Industrial Complex is strong Luke and you must fight it.
(Added leader to Un the punk kid who hasn't a clue.)

[GP6971]

3. Yeah, yeah, yeah

The north has been threatening for years. Although my level of concern is higher this time around.....two unproven leaders facing off against each other. Plus the new UN sanctions.

People don't realize the South Korean government pays to have our troops stationed there. We're there and are gradually turning overall command to the ROKs.. Our command staff, as well as our line troops, will be off the DMZ by 2015.

There was an earlier post ( a video) from north korea depicting how the US lives. What bullshit. One should hear their propaganda statements being broadcast over their loudspeakers on the DMZ. I spent a lot of time on the DMZ.......their bullshit propaganda is just that....bullshit.

[joshcryer]

9. +1, they ain't doing squat.

They know their regime would be over if they did, completely over.

China might even go against them.

[davidpdx]

12. I saw a post a day or two ago complaining about how we defend South Korea

and the person was pretty ignorant about the agreement between South Korea and the US. I've lived in South Korea for over 9 years and any time they buy equipment from the US they are always complaining about how expensive it is (I just roll my eyes). In 2007 I took a tour up on the DMZ and found it very interesting.

[Ash_F]

5. North Korea wants...

"North Korea wants a formal peace treaty, security guarantees and other concessions, as well as the removal of 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea."

Are these really that unreasonable, after all these years?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

6. When you live in Korea like I did, you will understand how unreasonable it is.

North Korea supporter? The only one outside of the chinese government?

[Ash_F]

7. If it was the South that wanted a peace treaty, would it be more reasonable?

PS - I have no allegiance to either government. I am just an outside observer.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

11. your outside observation is flawed because you were never on the ground there

i was.

[Ash_F]

16. That does not address the subject. /nt

[Nanjing to Seoul]

33. I never thought I would meet someone so clueless about North Korea

Again, if you think it's Heaven on Earth like Rodman, Pyongyang is that way ---->

[Ash_F]

34. Well then I guess you have an opportunity to educate my clueless self.

Right now it just looks like you can't think of an argument for why there should not be peace. Don't try to turn this into some kind of "which country is better" discussion because it is not material to the topic.


It is odd that people would even argue against peace on a site like this. Oh well, I guess that's DU in 2013.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

36. yes, peace with a country that bombs its neighbor, oppresses its people

murders them with impunity and attacks its neighbor.

i'm done with you. learn about korea. i lived there, buddy. welcome to ignoreland.

[Ash_F]

37. No you are right. I guess war is better. /nt

[crim son]

43. Ignoring somebody for asking an honest question

is an odd response. Fortunately for us ignorant folk, somebody downthread was willing to be more explicit.

[davidpdx]

13. Yes it actually is too much to ask

I have also lived in South Korea, for 9 years. Trusting North Korea or the Chinese for that matter would be a mistake.

[Ash_F]

18. A peace treaty is too much to ask because *blank*

Just fill in the blank. If you are having a hard time thinking of something that does not sound unreasonable, then maybe it is time for reflection.

[davidpdx]

22. I gave you an answer

Because North Korea and China can not be trusted. North Korea and their ally China are a party to the treaty as is the United States.
I'll give you a few more..North Korean continues to build nuclear weapons, they continue to cause provocation not only on the Korean peninsula by also in Northern Asia through missile and nuclear bomb tests.

You can sit there and claim that the US and South Korea are being unreasonable, while at the same time North Korea continues doing the same thing. Last year North Korea shelled an island for no reason except the fact that they had a wild hair up their ass.

We have tried talks and North Korea has walked away every time. I have no problem with them trying again, I do have a problem with appeasing them because they continue to threaten other countries.

[Ash_F]

26. OK so a peace treaty is too much to ask because "North Korea and China can not be trusted"

This is not really a full answer. Maybe you can elaborate on your reasoning. If North Korea were to violate the peace treaty, do you think that the US's hands would be tied? I would think they would be able to bring their military to bear just the same, because any treaty would be nullified.

The incident I believe you are speaking was the 2010 Bombardment of Yeonpyeong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong

That battle escalated from a live fire exercise off of NK's border. Which brings another question. How vital is it to continue to have these exercises so close to their border? If they had carried out similar maneuvers off of the California Coast, for example, would that not be cause for concern? I imagine any NK ship would be summarily sunk, regardless of being in international waters.

I imagine from the NK perspective, they see the US as a nation that invaded them in the midst of what they perceive as their own revolution and SK as their dutiful puppet. That may not be fair, but compounding on that perception is the fact that the US has invaded many countries in the half century since then and actually just finished invading another country and installing puppets there. I can see why they would want some kind of promise against invasion.

Both governments consider the other to be the aggressor, but the US is the only one making the two major aggressive gestures of denying a peace treaty and conducting war exercises off the other nation's border. As far as nuclear weapons go, both nations are guilty of having them and the US is the only one to use them.

[davidpdx]

27. I don't think you know squat about the Yeongpyeong shelling or the reasons behind it

I was actually here in Korea when it took place. The live fire exercise took place in South Korean waters and all of the shell were fired away from North Korean waters. North Korea refuses to recognized the NLL (Northern Limit Line) established under the peace treaty. There were NO US FORCES in the area. The US kept their ships down by the tip of the peninsula quite a distance from the North. This was not done due to the exercises, but as a premeditated act of aggression and having a hissy fit.

South Korea does not have any nuclear weapons, so between the two, North Korea is a much larger threat.

Please once again, go find out the truth instead of peddling the North Korean propaganda.

[Ash_F]

28. You can't take the US out of this equation

It is the principal actor here. If the US government wants something done one way and South Korea wants it done another, the resolution is always going to be that the two nations are going to do it the way the US wants. Regardless of whether SK wants a peace treaty right now, only the US has the UNSC power to to veto it.

But no, I guess you are right. The "NO PEACE TREATY EVER!!!" perspective is totally reasonable. Good night for now.

[davidpdx]

29. That is hilarious

I hope you take your ignorance elsewhere. South Korea controls its own military including in a time of war. The people here are extremely vocal when the government makes decisions that are unpopular, hence the protests that take place.

If there were any kind of treaty that was going to be vetoed, it would by Russia and/or China. They are the ones that veto in the UN Security Council on issues of North Korea.

Once again, get your facts straight!

[Ash_F]

30. China would veto a peace treaty proposed by North Korea?

I thought part of the reason that you reject the idea of a peace treaty is because you said China could not be trusted?

You should probably go back to the beginning of this convo and reread because it sounds like you got lost somewhere along the way. Or maybe you were pretty tired when you made that post.

[davidpdx]

31. No I'm saying China and Russia have veto power on the UNSC as well

Either of them could veto it for any reason. Both have been protectorates of North Korea, China more so over the last twenty years. My point is that the US is not the only one with veto power. If the conditions were unfavorable to North Korea they could in theory veto it.
You stated that the US is the only one who could veto it, which is not true.

In case you have missed the latest big of propaganda here it is:


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a8_1362925707




Apparently we are supplied with materials through the Red Cross from North Korea since we are so poor. You really think North Korea is an honest country to broker a peace agreement with?

[Ash_F]

35. I said the US is the only one between the US and SK.

And I don't think either China nor Russia would be against one.

In case you haven't clued in yet, I am not a NK fan. But the alternative to improving relations is being constantly to arms against each other until, eventually, another war breaks out.

A peace treaty is not capitulation; it is a simple thing. It is not going make you less of a man either. Pride makes people crazy. As far as other terms go, well that is more complicated. But big problems are best solved one step at a time.

[davidpdx]

40. A peace treaty would require North Korea to stop their provocation

The threat of war against South Korea and the US and torching and killing their people are the only thing that guarantees their existence. North Korea has had several chances to take a step forward and show they are serious. Instead they played Lucy with the football and as soon as they got what they wanted, they yanked it away.

One step at a time would have to be a trade off. How about they release people from the gulag camps that they deny exist and close them? In return they get rice. Seems easy right? The problem is they won't do it.

I'm not against a peace treaty, I'm just not convinced that we should trust North Korea unconditionally.

[Ash_F]

45. This post is the most sense you've made yet

Markedly different then how you entered this discussion. I would agree with most of it. But I argue that a peace treaty could be no more than a promise not to invade. If the US has no intention to invade, then it could at least not deny that much. It would at least be a step towards normalization. Not doing so because it makes us feel weak or whatever is impractical.

If people fear death and domination from an outsider, it just drives them into the hands of these right wing authoritarian governments. They buy into their snake oil of nationalism and security. And they end up getting dominated and loosing their security anyway. The US needs to take the fear of America out of the equation.

[hack89]

14. "other concessions" are the issue

North Korea is under UN sanctions for their propensity to sell ballistic missile and nuclear technology to anyone with an open checkbook. It is the only thing they have that the world wants to buy. There will be no peace treaty until they stop but they refuse to.

[Ash_F]

15. Yes I would like to know what the "other concessions" are as well

Though I think the significant ones are already described in the article.

I am against nuclear proliferation by any nation, but NK never signed the NPT and the US has mostly exempted itself, which is the same as not signing it by any practical measure. So I don't see how either country has moral authority here. None of that has anything to do with agreeing to a peace treaty though.

[hack89]

17. It is the UN that has the beef with NK over proliferation.

don't forget, we are not talking about a US-NK peace treaty. It would be a UN-NK peace treaty.

[Ash_F]

19. Not the UN but the UNSC. The US is the principal actor in this drama...

..and the only significant obstacle to such a treaty. At the time of the Korea war, the UNSC was dominated by the US. The resolutions related to missile weapons also come from the UNSC which is still heavily dominated by the US. The UNSC is a small collection of powerful countries and does not represented the UN as a whole, which the US also dominates but to a lesser degree.

And the US is North Korea's primary concern. That is the country which is currently holding war exercises just off their coast.

[hack89]

20. NK knows what it needs to do to get a peace treaty.

since they hold the losing hand at the moment, they don't have a lot of options. Give in or go under. They are not going to survive as a nation too much longer.

[Ash_F]

24. I think this ordeal reflects poorly on our own nation

It's not just about the US and North Korea. It is sad that some Americans think running around with massive fleets yelling "THERE WILL BE NO PEACE UNTIL ALL DEMANDS ARE MET" is the best way to communicate with the people of the world.

That arrogant uncompromising attitude is what got this Nation mired in the first Korean War, Vietnam and Iraq. And now, possibly, another war with North Korea.

[Posteritatis]

25. Yes, actually. (nt)

[Franker65]

10. China is losing patience with them

If they attack the South, Kim will be overthrown. Perhaps China would even launch a military incursion against the North. They really need to realise that having North Korea as a 'buffer state' is counter productive and more dangerous in the long run.

[Trascoli]

23. China does not care what NK will do

China loves stirring the pot because they have all the leverage

[jmowreader]

21. Here are the problems with the North Korean demands

First, this is nothing new: They have had a joint US-ROK field training exercise pretty much every year since the Armistice was signed, and the DPRK has threatened war, to pull out of the armistice, etc., every time we have the exercise.

Understanding the weather and the Han River is very important to understanding this exercise: there is a short period in March when the Han has the ideal conditions for fording a North Korean tank - a requirement if North Korea wants to invade South Korea, which they have wanted to do ever since the country was divided. So...the US puts another infantry division into Korea to dissuade the DPRK from doing this, and because there's no good reason to send twenty thousand troops to Korea to sit on their asses we hold a training exercise.

Now for the demands: The North Koreans have a million-man army. It's one of the few things the government spends money on. North Korea is a land of subsistence farmers with no industry to speak of, very little tourism, and nothing worth exporting except copies of Soviet-designed weapons. Because North Korea is such a shithole, they have absolutely no reason to maintain an army of defense of any size at all...but considering that South Korea is a rich and powerful nation, they have every reason in the world to maintain an army that can conquer it. The North Koreans also know that the entire South Korean defense structure relies on American manpower. South Koreans have good troops...they just don't have enough. If the US were to pull its army out of South Korea, South Korea would be a communist country by the end of the year. I realize this sounds like the old "we must spend all our money to defeat the spread of communism" thing, but of all the places in the world where communists yearned to stamp out freedom, North Korea is the only one where they could actually do it.

[davidpdx]

32. Exactly

Some people try to make this incident into the opposite of what it is instead of North Korea threatening the US and South Korea. They are using manipulation for money and food, not to feed the ordinary people but their army. There have been documented cases when humanitarian aid is given to North Korea the aid is given to the government after it is distributed. The North Korean people have no other choice, if they don't they end up in a gulag or dead.

South Korea is paying for the US to help defend their nation and part of that defense is yearly exercise drills that take place. The drills are announced in advance so they are no surprise to anyone.

[Posteritatis]

38. I hadn't considered the point re: the scheduling of the exercises; that's interesting. (nt)

[Ash_F]

39. But what would stop the US from quickly mobilizing a response to an invasion?

The US, of all countries, has shown time and again that it can mobilize huge numbers of troops across vast distances thanks to our own massive military spending. North Korea is surely aware of this.

The NK government says the US wants to invade them, the right wingers in US government/media say they want to invade the South. I think neither is right, but that does not mean war can't happen with both nations pointing their guns at each other, constantly on edge.

[davidpdx]

41. The US only has 28,500 troops in South Korea

Most of them are stationed south of Seoul. Once a year the drill occur and the North Koreans are well aware of that ahead of time. The North Korean Government are full of paranoid idiots. The US and South Korea have no reason to start a war as they know China would back North Korea, so the idea you are pushing is absurd.

I've seen no where in the media specifically pushing for war with North Korea. They have played up the story of the tensions, which I think is ridiculous. Really the whole thing is not that big of a deal. This stuff happens and people go about their business. As I said I live 26 km (approximately) from the North Korean border. If I were pissing my pants about it, I'd say so.

In terms of the right wingers, they are irrelevant. They have screwed themselves so bad that they won't be in control for a long while.

[Ash_F]

44. "China would back North Korea"

And the US would back South Korea if North Korea started war. If North Korea started the war, China would rightfully not support them either. So if the whole thing is no big deal, then why is the idea of a peace treaty so offensive to justify all of the inane flailing I have seen from you and one other poster in this thread? Your logic is absurd.

Nonsensical aggression couched in ego.

[davidpdx]

46. Once again, there is no reason for a peace treaty with a country that has gone back on their word

every single time they have made an agreement. You can get all peace noogie and happy hugs if you want. All I am saying is North Korea would have to show good faith. Peace treaties aren't made just for the hell of it. There has to be a logical reason for both sides to come to an agreement. Despite what you think, neither side wants it. I'm not advocating for war, and again I don't believe South Korea or the US would start a war. What I'm saying is that South Korea needs to continue to defend itself in the event North Korea attacks again (yes, I said again as in they have attacked before-look up the reasons for the Korean War). South Korea has that right as well as the right to ask the US to support them.

Is it that hard for you to understand or do you need me to say it slowly?

[Ash_F]

47. Like I said in the other subthread, a peace treaty could be no more than a promise not to invade

It wouldn't mean, for example, that South Koreans would not be able to defend themselves in a situation like the island incident. If the US keeps saying "can't do that" then how can that be considered being reasonable?

[jmowreader]

42. Terrain

If the DPRK decides to invade South Korea, it's going to take many divisions to stop them...assuming we can delay them at the Han Estuary until we can get the divisions in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington to Korea. If the North Korean Army gets into the hills south of the DMZ, all bets are off.