Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

N. Korea: No Flying Zone Might be Imposed(if N. Korean Situation Deteriorates)
Yonhap News ^ | 03/13/05 | Lee Kwi-won

Posted on 03/13/2005 4:40:24 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster

/begin my translation

No Flying Zone Might be Imposed, if N. Korean Situation Deteriorates

If diplomatic efforts fail, in the worst case, it may be imposed south of Pyongyang.

(Seoul-Yonhap News) Lee Kwi-won - A proposal is drawing keen attention, which says that, if N. Korean nuclear problem turns for the worst, No Flying Zone could be imposed on N. Korean territory.

The proposal has been made by Professor A(anonymized) from Staff University(?) under DoD, who attended the 46th Annual International Studies Meeting, held in Hawaii at the beginning of this month.

Dr. Cho Sung-ryol at the Institute for International Affairs Research, who attended the meeting, said on (Mar.) 13th that Professor A, who has good inside knowledge of DoD, commented that some DoD officials are studying a proposal to impose a No Flying Zone south of Pyongyang.

This proposal of setting up No Flying Zone is akin to the one imposed on Iraq following U.N. Security Council Resolution after the Gulf War I in '91. It aims to shoot down N. Korean planes violating the No Flying Zone.

According to Professor A, while DoD agrees with the principle of peaceful resolution of N. Korean nuclear problem, they are studying the proposal if the worst case scenario develops and they are asked to submit it as one of options.

Dr. Cho concluded that such a remark by Professor A is "way too premature while international communities are trying hard to resolve the issue in a peaceful and diplomatic manner."

However, he also said, "They could show interests in imposing No Flying Zone instead of preemptive attack because it would be practically difficult to seek out and destroy N. Korean nuclear weapons if N. Korea did possess them."

/end my translation


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dod; nkorea; noflyingzone; northkorea; nuke; pyongyang; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
Well, I had a different scenario with regard to No Flying Zone. I thought that they could impose it on N.E. part of N. Korea, where there are many military installations, including missile bases, and where most N. Koreans of anti-regime bent live. I mean, both Ham-kyong Provinces, Yang-gang and Ja-gang Provinces.

If an insurrection breaks out and gathers enough popular support in this area, it could literally become N. Korean equivalent of Kurdistan. This area has been hard-hit by famine. There is no love left between them and Kim Jong-il regime. We also get to suppress their missiles.

Maybe we could impose No Flying Zone in two phasese. First, impose it south of Pyongyang, thus preventing any chance of delivering nukes via airplanes. Next, impose it on N.E. N. Korea.

Either No Flying Zone could trigger serious military conflict, though.

1 posted on 03/13/2005 4:40:25 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; AmericanInTokyo; OahuBreeze; yonif; risk; Steel Wolf; nuconvert; MizSterious; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 03/13/2005 4:40:53 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

I already try to avoid flying south of Pyongyang.


3 posted on 03/13/2005 4:43:20 AM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

No fly = War.


4 posted on 03/13/2005 4:48:14 AM PST by Rebelbase (Who is General Chat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

At this point, sneezing towards the DMZ would trigger a war, according to Lil' Kim.


5 posted on 03/13/2005 4:53:23 AM PST by WestVirginiaRebel (Carnac: A siren, a baby and a liberal. Answer: Name three things that whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Get out of my airspace!!
6 posted on 03/13/2005 4:53:59 AM PST by mainepatsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

thanks for the ping.


7 posted on 03/13/2005 4:54:19 AM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan

"I can fry higher than an eego"


8 posted on 03/13/2005 5:00:29 AM PST by cripplecreek (I'm apathetic but really don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

All Professor Anoonymous needs is an Air Force.


9 posted on 03/13/2005 5:04:34 AM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

I think that would be an act of war that NK would not ignore.

Whether I agree with it or not!


10 posted on 03/13/2005 5:06:50 AM PST by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"I can fry higher than an eego"

LOL!!!!

11 posted on 03/13/2005 5:10:11 AM PST by yankeedame ("Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan; TigerLikesRooster

<< Get out of my airspace!! >>

All of your airspaces are belong to US!


12 posted on 03/13/2005 5:25:39 AM PST by Brian Allen (I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Bump


13 posted on 03/13/2005 5:26:59 AM PST by nw_arizona_granny (The enemy within, will be found in the "Communist Manifesto 1963", you are living it today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hflynn; TigerLikesRooster

<< All Professor Anoonymous needs is an Air Force. >>

And all poor Professor Anoonymous has are a couple or so United States Navy Carrier Battle Groups.

And all NK's airspaces and STILL beyong to US!


14 posted on 03/13/2005 5:28:43 AM PST by Brian Allen (I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

"...you can have everything else, but leave Europa alone". -2001 A Space Oddyssy.


15 posted on 03/13/2005 5:34:25 AM PST by MarshallDillon (Texas is a RINO-circus and Governor Perry is wearing leotards in center ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
I'm sure Professor Anonymous is not Dr. Condoleezza Rice and I'm sure Professor Anonymous isn't capable of imposing his foreign policy views on the US or NK. especially without his own air force.
16 posted on 03/13/2005 5:37:03 AM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
No fly = War.

I believe that the reaction of the North would be immediate and violent. They would correctly conclude that incremental loss of control of the air would completely undermine their warmaking capabilities. Finding themselves in a classic "use it or lose it" situation, the North would opt to "use it" against Seoul.

This is not to say that I would oppose a "no-fly" zone. I only caution that it must not be imposed without a full appreciation of the consequences, and mobilization of all required resources to deal with those consequences.

17 posted on 03/13/2005 5:59:12 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Are the B-52s holding at their failsafe points, Mandrake ?


18 posted on 03/13/2005 6:08:34 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I note that several comments refer to the overall superiority of US aviation (Navy and Air Force) and our ability to quickly suppress North Korean aviation.

While I agree that our forces are capable of taking control of North Korean airspace, it will not be without cost and, more importantly, it will take crucial hours. A no-fly zone would effectively pin the North Korean air forces on the ground.

The North Koreans need to use those forces to buy time even if they are used as a throw-away force. They would be unable to effectively resist the imposition of such a control regime incrementally. Their only hope would be to excalate immediately, and I think that is the course they are most likely to take.

If there were to be a UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone voted upon in the Security Council, I would look for North Korean military action to follow immediately upon such adoption of such a resolution... But could such a resolution be passed in a body where Russia and China each have a veto? It seems fanciful to me.


19 posted on 03/13/2005 6:10:54 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

"...caution that it must not be imposed without a full appreciation of the consequences, and mobilization of all required resources to deal with those consequences."

Wisest comment on this thread so far......

Like ferinstance, the Northern border of NK is China....and the very very large numbers of non-nuke missiles across NK......do we have the inventory to take them out? I doubt it.


20 posted on 03/13/2005 6:14:34 AM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson