Jump to content
DuckHunter

North Korea at it again

Recommended Posts

On 10/23/2017 at 9:32 AM, FourFans130 said:

"What does conventional conflict look like with a nuclear element?" - CSAF

Sir, conventional war with a nuclear element looks like nuclear war.

If I bring a gun to a knife fight, is it still a knife fight?

Brilliant.

If NK uses a nuclear weapon, I'm fairly confident that NCA will drop orders to make sections of that country into glass-floored self-lighting parking lots, and the commanders of NORTHCOM and STRATCOM won't have much of a say in it.

Where is Buck Turgidson when you need him?

There is no question we would destroy NK, but South Korea would be decimated (at least everything north of Osan) when the North Koreans push south of the DMZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2017 at 9:24 PM, dream big said:

There is no question we would destroy NK, but South Korea would be decimated (at least everything north of Osan) when the North Koreans push south of the DMZ

And then you have both a colossal humanitarian crisis as well as a likely insurgency with regime loyalists....God, that whole thing would be a mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NK defector shot 5 times in his escape from a worker's paradise.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/22/health/north-korea-defector-parasites-health/index.html

Amnesty for all DPRK officials who defect with monetary compensation, park cruise ships right at 12.1 nms for pickup of anybody defecting, anything to start cracking the dam... it will be expensive as hell to unfornicate NK but it is better than doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some new info about this latest illegal transfer of oil to the Norks. It definitely seems like someone is getting played in this Nork oil transfer charade :>)
On 24 November the South Koreans seized the Hong Kong/PRC registered tanker named the "Lighthouse Winmore". This is the tanker that transferred 600 tons of refined petroleum products to Nork ships. At the time of this oil transfer incident, the PRC registered Lighthouse Winmore was being chartered by a Taiwanese company named Billions Bunker Group. The players involved and sequence of this transfer is definitly strange.
- Step 1; The Lighthouse Winmore arrives in the "South Korean" port of Yeosu and takes on a cargo of refined Japanese patroleum products while in this South Korean port.
- Step 2; This Hong Kong/PRC registered ship that was being chartered by a Tiawanese company then departes a South Korean port after being loaded with Japanese refined petroleum and heads into international waters.
- Step 3; The PRC registered/Taiwanese chartered "Lighthouse Winmore" then meets up with the Nork tanker, the Sam Jong 2 (plus 3 other unnamed ships) in the East China Sea. This is where the Japanese refined petroleum products, that were loaded on the ship in a South Korean port, are transfered to the Nork ships.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/29/seoul-seizes-hong-kong-registered-tanker-used-secretly-sell/

 

  • Edit
  • Reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

So the ship is in SK custody but can a fine be levied against the operator and the company that chartered it? Who could levy it?

I have no idea who can levy the fine or who should be fined or what other penalties will be imposed on this ship/crew/companies/countries/etc involved in this incident, this commercial shipping stuff is complicated. IMHO, the Taiwanese company that chartered this ship probably bears the most responsibility for circumventing the UN Sanctions that are designed to prevent, at sea, ship to ship transferring of goods to the Norks. 

The players; The Lighthouse Winmore is a new tanker and was built in 2014. This tanker is owned by Win More Shipping Ltd, managed by Lighthouse Ship Management Ltd, Flagged in Hong Kong, chartered by a Taiwanese company called the Billions Bunker Group, was loaded with Japanese refined oil products and it got this refined oil product from the South Koreans. 

 

Edited by waveshaper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, waveshaper said:

I have no idea who can levy the fine or who should be fined or what other penalties will be imposed on this ship/crew/companies/countries/etc involved in this incident, this commercial shipping stuff is complicated. IMHO, the Taiwanese company that chartered this ship probably bears the most responsibility for circumventing the UN Sanctions that are designed to prevent, at sea, ship to ship transferring of goods to the Norks. 

The players; The Lighthouse Winmore is a new tanker and was built in 2014. This tanker is owned by Win More Shipping Ltd, managed by Lighthouse Ship Management Ltd, Flagged in Hong Kong, chartered by a Taiwanese company called the Billions Bunker Group, was loaded with Japanese refined oil products and it got this refined oil product from the South Koreans. 

Copy that.

There may not actually be one as it was in International Waters but as a principle, seizing the ship and impounding it for 6+ months may be enough of a disincentive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ROK seized a second commercial ship (the Tanker Koti) about 18 miles west of Osan (location; Pyeongtaek-Dangjin port). Rumor is the ROK may also try to seize a couple Russian tankers that have been doing this at sea transfer of oil to the Norks stuff.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/31/south-korea-seizes-second-ship-suspected-of-smuggling-oil-to-north

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, waveshaper said:

 Rumor is the ROK may also try to seize a couple Russian tankers that have been doing this at sea transfer of oil to the Norks stuff.

That could get sporty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're stuck in an amplifying cycle and I'm not sure why the Euros at least are not on board with stopping this right now.  

At various launches, Iranians are in the viewing stands and it is just a matter of time before the DPRK has a warhead that is compatible with their rudimentary ICBM, the Iranians will pay thru the nose to instantly have nukes and the ICBMs to deliver them putting Europe, Israel, KSA and eventually the USA in range.  We all know the final destination for this crazy train (rogue nations becoming nuclear powers) and I would not be surprised if Venezuela (if it doesn't implode first) doesn't come to them wanting that capability to ensure they will never be attacked by the US (at least under current unstated policy). 

It's time to get serious about getting rid of the regime, that doesn't mean preemptive strike (it would have include tac nuke strikes so it is off the table) but massively to increase the pressure on China / Russia to reign in or collapse the regime, really it is to collapse it as they will never truthfully comply with a denuclearization deal.

 

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

We're stuck in an amplifying cycle and I'm not sure why the Euros at least are not on board with stopping this right now.  

Because they're actually being asked to work towards the defense of the world, versus their own backyard with our help for once.  There's no oil in it, or terrorism concern.  They've got little to nothing invested in that side of the world nationally.  

There's NOTHING in them for it economically, and we've seen how dedicated most of our euro "partners" are to freedom abroad when that's the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they're actually being asked to work towards the defense of the world, versus their own backyard with our help for once.  There's no oil in it, or terrorism concern.  They've got little to nothing invested in that side of the world nationally.  

There's NOTHING in them for it economically, and we've seen how dedicated most of our euro "partners" are to freedom abroad when that's the case.

 

Yeah, the overall greater good is hard to buy into but methinks that is a result of the sense of entitlement to American security guarantees

 

Start 2018 with a metaphorical bang POTUS - call for reunification and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula:

-10 year multinational peace keeping and stabilizing force: USA-China-Australia-Canada-Poland-UK, 300k boots on the ground, cede to China air space control north of 38th (assuring them of security and sovereignty control to the Yalu), US / Allies Air forces operate south

-Following successful 10 year transition to reunification, withdrawal of US forces to Pusan with withdrawal entirely in another 10 years if the situation is stable

-Amnesty for all former DPRK gov officials with guarantee of employment or pensions

-Commit to a Korean Marshal Plan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

Yeah, the overall greater good is hard to buy into but methinks that is a result of the sense of entitlement to American security guarantees

 

Start 2018 with a metaphorical bang POTUS - call for reunification and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula:

-10 year multinational peace keeping and stabilizing force: USA-China-Australia-Canada-Poland-UK, 300k boots on the ground, cede to China air space control north of 38th (assuring them of security and sovereignty control to the Yalu), US / Allies Air forces operate south

-Following successful 10 year transition to reunification, withdrawal of US forces to Pusan with withdrawal entirely in another 10 years if the situation is stable

-Amnesty for all former DPRK gov officials with guarantee of employment or pensions

-Commit to a Korean Marshal Plan

 

 

In which universe does this reality exist where China will accept a unified Korea with strong ties to the US?

same question for Russia?

how about we just leave things alone on the military front and keep working diplomatic, informational, economic fronts unless our plan is to just say phook it and regime change while being okay with the possibility of Seoul being a burn pit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 1111 said:

In which universe does this reality exist where China will accept a unified Korea with strong ties to the US?

same question for Russia?

how about we just leave things alone on the military front and keep working diplomatic, informational, economic fronts unless our plan is to just say phook it and regime change while being okay with the possibility of Seoul being a burn pit.

Don't discount that China / Russia would accept a unified Korea with ties to the US, if they want an Asia with a reduced US military footprint this is one way to that reality.

Status Quo is an option but it will exacerbate other problems (nuclear proliferation, ballistic missile proliferation, NK other illegal activities of synthetic narcotics, counterfeiting, etc...) and keeps us engaged in SK forever + 1 day.

I'm not saying to not keep up the non-kinetic efforts we have going right now but it is time to break the ice rather than argue for the same things with the same regime as we have done for 26 years with nothing to show for it.

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1111 said:

In which universe does this reality exist where China will accept a unified Korea with strong ties to the US?

same question for Russia?

how about we just leave things alone on the military front and keep working diplomatic, informational, economic fronts unless our plan is to just say phook it and regime change while being okay with the possibility of Seoul being a burn pit.

Our greatest bargaining chip with China/Russia hasn't been used yet in my opinion (at least in terms of public knowledge). Push for a de-nuclearized and unified Korea, with a DMZ at the Chinese border and ZERO US Military bases on the peninsula. We can offer support and arms to the ROK, but we can't base troops. China essentially removes a thorn in their ass (close based US troops) in exchange for a less-than-near-peer capitalist country on their border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

You assume, of course, that reunification would look like South Korea ..... 

Good point.  Wonder what the ball park figures are to support the North and its people post conflict.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

You assume, of course, that reunification would look like South Korea ..... 

Valid point but with 30 x GDP and twice the population it would be some version of the current SK by the sheer weight of their influence and fact that they would be bringing the North up to modernity by transfer payments.  

Also, I doubt China would want the new Korea to be anything close to the DPRK, they may not like a capitalist democracy with good ties to America on the border but that is a helluva lot better than a wildly unpredictable, WMD armed communist dynasty ruling millions of desperate people on your border.

Probably 30 years in total to rebuild and fully change the vector of a post communist economy and after effects of 70+ years brutal dictatorship.

32 minutes ago, uhhello said:

Good point.  Wonder what the ball park figures are to support the North and its people post conflict.  

Trillion+ $

https://www.uskoreainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/YB07-Chapt6.pdf

 

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Don't discount that China / Russia would accept a unified Korea with ties to the US, if they want an Asia with a reduced US military footprint this is one way to that reality.

Status Quo is an option but it will exacerbate other problems (nuclear proliferation, ballistic missile proliferation, NK other illegal activities of synthetic narcotics, counterfeiting, etc...) and keeps us engaged in SK forever + 1 day.

I'm not saying to not keep up the non-kinetic efforts we have going right now but it is time to break the ice rather than argue for the same things with the same regime as we have done for 26 years with nothing to show for it.

We can break the ice in other ways, but if North and South does not want reunification or they can’t agreee on who leads then we are left with us regime changing and figuring it out afterwards. The latter option has yet to bear fruit anywhere for us. I say keep working all the other yet to be used non kinetic means unless we just use the phook it option (i.e. regime change)

You bring an interesting line, if your proposed option was a reality, how much of a reduced US presence would we set upon?

would the US truly leave a unified Korea to China and Russia?

2 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Our greatest bargaining chip with China/Russia hasn't been used yet in my opinion (at least in terms of public knowledge). Push for a de-nuclearized and unified Korea, with a DMZ at the Chinese border and ZERO US Military bases on the peninsula. We can offer support and arms to the ROK, but we can't base troops. China essentially removes a thorn in their ass (close based US troops) in exchange for a less-than-near-peer capitalist country on their border.

Interesting as well. With this DMZ option, do you see the US being able to hold influence in this region through “support and arms”?

disclaimer: I am all for leaving but it will also come along with a strong loss of influence in the region. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1111 said:

We can break the ice in other ways, but if North and South does not want reunification or they can’t agreee on who leads then we are left with us regime changing and figuring it out afterwards. The latter option has yet to bear fruit anywhere for us. I say keep working all the other yet to be used non kinetic means unless we just use the phook it option (i.e. regime change)

You bring an interesting line, if your proposed option was a reality, how much of a reduced US presence would we set upon?

would the US truly leave a unified Korea to China and Russia?

Interesting as well. With this DMZ option, do you see the US being able to hold influence in this region through “support and arms”?

disclaimer: I am all for leaving but it will also come along with a strong loss of influence in the region. 

After a successful 10 year stabilization mission?  Probably 50k around Pusan for the next 10 years then eventual withdrawal of permanently based forces.  

50k is about 35%+ what we have now there now, the additional forces would be a reassurance that significant capability to reverse and secure exists if any shenanigans were attempted. 

I would imagine for the stabilization force about 100k US forces of the total 300k force (China would have 100k to give them the prestige of a 1 to 1 with US forces and to ensure no loss of face), the other 100k would have to be combination of a new coalition, nations selected to be acceptable to SK, NK, US, China to round out the force and have "neutral" members to dilute any tension building in the stabilization force.

ROK and DPRK armies would be training together and forming a new unified Korean Army, ditto for AF & Navy.  

Valid point on losing influence in the region but I am convinced that our excessive involvement in some areas of the world is detrimental to the Republic; politically, economically and spiritually.  It (post Cold War maintenance of Cold War era deterrence missions) now work mainly to the interest of international corporations, the global elite, sullen & complacent host nations and the MIC.  The Republic has gone from being prudently cautious and when called for absolutely decisive in war to overextended, tolerant of draining perpetual war/conflict and self-destructively over protecting those who are capable of most of their own defense.

We should not accept that we will be in large deployment to SK, Western Europe, etc... for the next 25+ years.  It's not good for us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I see your viewpoint and I 🤔 what that cost (and multiple unknown nth order effects) in influence will be to pick up all of our military toys and leave. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to ask If we are there because of the crazy fat man or China, me thinks both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see your viewpoint and I what that cost (and multiple unknown nth order effects) in influence will be to pick up all of our military toys and leave. 

 

 

IDK all the effects either but like a lot of things it’s not the idea per se but the execution.

 

Redeployment would be gradual but positive, every year unless a new aggression causes a pause, we gradually pull out (sts) or transition to a new stabilization/deterrence posture (ref a hypothetical Korean unification stabilization mission).

 

It would not be an exactly even process but about 10% per year of capacity in theater would be redeployed from one phase to the next and/or the final withdrawal phase (assuming the conditions for redevelopment or withdrawal are met)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

You need to ask If we are there because of the crazy fat man or China, me thinks both.

or the real regional threat...

Image result for goddamn mongorians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×