Posted on 03/13/2005 4:40:24 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
/begin my translation
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." No Flying Zone Might be Imposed, if N. Korean Situation Deteriorates
/end my translation
I think that this talk about No Flying Zone may be intended to raise the political temperature around Korean Peninsula. In addition to N. Korea, this remark is intended for China and S. Korea. That is, "The neighborhood could go to hell unless you show more cooperation...."
I expect this kind of remarks through unofficial channels to pick up in the days ahead. Various kinds of escalation would be talked about and many of them would leaked out. Making it prohibitively expensive to prop up the N. Korean regime for whatever reason.
My cousin's husband recently died and in his obituary he was listed as a Korean War vet. I thought he was too young to have fought in the Korean War so, I got to looking at the dates. He was born in 1939 so, that would make him 14 years old when the Armistice was signed in 1953. He did serve in the Rangers in Korea in the late 50's/early 60's. We are officially still at a state of war with North Korea and my question is: Are all the troops who spent time on the DMZ (and South Korea) since 1953 considered Korean War vets?
I don't think I can answer that question.
I believe that a look at the eligibility dates for this medal will clarify the issue:
THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA WAR SERVICE MEDAL
(ROKWSM)
You are eligible for this medal if your Korea service was between 25 June 1950 and 27 July 1953. If your service was before or after this date you DO NOT qualify.
http://www.kdvamerica.org/vsupport.html#ROKWSM
(I served in Korea in 74-75, and was issued an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for that service. I've never considered myself a Korean WAR Vet)
It would go nuc very quickly. I'n not saying that would be an incredibly bad thing. If I had to destroy a few neutrons or 30,000 US troops.... watch closely and you may see the double flash!
It would be a simple binary choice. There would be no other option.
Yup, might as well impose a no dictator zone.
How about a no-nuke zone?
LOL!!!
Yeah, it is no casual task.
MI Ping.
Okay thanks. That was my thoughts too.
Did you ever see the 36 foot tide at Inchon?
After Desert Storm the no fly zones were put in place to protect ethnic minorities from fixed wing strikes after the conflict was over. The surface to air threat was limited to a few SAM sites allowed under the cease fire. Any other Surface to Air activity could be attacked by coalition aircraft to a varying degree depending on the day of the week and what phase the Clinton/Monica investigation was at.
The Korean situation is greatly different. You have a country with a large military with one mission; the "liberation" of the south. Flying aircraft over their country would only serve to piss them off. They have an extensive SAM network and numerous aircraft. While they have a small number of advanced aircraft, what would happen if they launched a hundred MiG-21's at the first eight ship of Eagles that entered Korean airspace. At best you would end up with 35 dead MiGs and the Eagles running out of country winchester on missiles.
My personal feeling is that a no fly zone would be met with a large Surface to Air effort and if that was suppressed the North Koreans would switch to a strategy they have been training for, the invasion of the South
36 foot tide at Inchon?
Yes......at low tide the mudflat went out at least a quarter mile to the channel that made the Inchon landing so difficult and risky. I spent 2 days there.....I ran the ER at Camp Casey for a year otherwise....2d Div.
See my reply #21. That is one way to interpret it.
I've seen Inchon at low tide and at high tide, but I never stuck around to see the tides change.
High tide is the reason why most major ports are on the Eastern side of S. Korea. That is, Pusan, Pohang, and Ulsan.
Silly idea,its provocation, why not just attack North Korea?
That will force N. Korea to fulfill its suicide fantasy, which it has had no intention of doing, while it will literally give a heart attack to China and S. Korea. We could all it a "Mad Bush Doctrine.":-)
yobo (one of them, anyway, LOL) and I had a cottage 100 yds from the water for a weekend.....I'm sure its wall-to-wall 5 star hotels now though
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.