Korean Peninsula Developments

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If there is a change in administration after the November elections, there is going to be a long list of incompetent Trump enabler/advisors that should face criminal prosecution. Hopefully a good proportion of the political enablers will be removed from office. The problem is the country will need to heal should Trump go and an aggressive purge should happen but prosecutions may be counter productive albeit well deserved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The problem is the country will need to heal should Trump go and an aggressive purge should happen but prosecutions may be counter productive albeit well deserved.
There will be no healing of the US after Trump unless there is a brutal and bloody civil war followed by 30 years of reconstruction, one way or the other. That Rubicon has been crossed.
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
3. In his recent book, former National Security Advisor John Bolton confirms that President Trump was desperate to have the June 2018 Singapore summit with Kim Jong-Un at any price because it would be “great theater,” “an exercise in publicity.” There was no detailed preparation, no formal agenda. He was prepared to sign a “substantive free Communique.” When leaving the meeting, Kim Jong-Un said he was “glad that he and President Trump had agreed to follow the ‘action for action’ approach” and asked if lifting UN sanctions would be next. President Trump said he was open to it and wanted to think about it. So Kim Jong-Un left with optimistic expectations.

4. On US-South Korean joint military exercises, President Trump repeatedly complained about how expensive and provocative they are; he saw them as waste of money. So when Kim Jong-Un said he wanted the US to reduce or eliminate exercises, President Trump said he would override the generals and do so. Neither the White House Chief of Staff Kelly, Secretary of State Pompeo, nor Bolton—who were sitting right there!—were consulted and of course not Secretary of Defense Mattis (who was not there). No consultations with South Korea either. President Trump just gave in to Kim Jong-Un without consulting or notifying anyone.
Is holding summits that agree to the vague demands of the Norks without consulting with the other alliance partners bad ? Because if so, see the 2007 inter-Korea summit (where Roh reportedly agreed to surrender ROK sovereignty in the West Sea-affirmed in 2018-and also IIRC reportedly agreed with KJI to discuss removal of US troops from the peninsula. I say "reportedly" because one of Roh's staffers destroyed the transcripts afterwards). Or is it only bad when Trump is doing it?

Is holding summits where we agree to ridiculous demands of the Norks to keep summits going bad with no expectation that they will work? If so, see the Leap Day agreement (which lasted whole weeks before nK broke it) or to go really far back, the agreement we signed with them to release the PUEBLO sailors...and then immediately and publicly renounced as soon as those guys were in our hands again? Or is it only bad when Trump does it?

Indeed, if we're going to promote a peaceful resolution to the problem of having too many Koreas on the Korean peninsula-and since 1994 or so, no one's really argued or probably even thought too hard about the obvious alternative course of action-Trump's love of dumb spectacle is actually helpful, since the Norks are going to demand it as well, and with Trump being so risible, it really costs the US little. It's a price you're going to have to pay to move the peace movement forward. Yes, antagonizing the ROK over the cost of housing troops is dumb. But it's not like the ROKs elected a guy with long ties to a deeply anti-American segment of the ROK left before Trump was even a nominee.

And let me be clear that I don't like Trump. I voted against him both in my party primary and in the general. But it's very easy for the media to single out Trump, when he's following the same path (if not in the same manner) as people before him, and not nearly as central to changes as many like to allege.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Is holding summits that agree to the vague demands of the Norks without consulting with the other alliance partners bad ?
No, in concept.
In most areas, our thinking on North Korea is aligned — I think that any American President should tread carefully. I can imagine there may be circumstances where it can be harmful and result in deaths — given that there are over 23,400 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in South Korea. There is never a dull moment on the Korean peninsula and for now at least, President Moon's administration in Seoul will be breathing a sigh of relief.

Despite the current sigh of relief, Americans must be prepared that the 950,000 strong North Korean Army, as an aggressor, will shoot when push comes to shove, just as they did on 15 Jun 1999, on 29 Jun 2002, on 26 Mar 2010 (ROKS Cheonan sinking) and on 23 Nov 2010 (bombardment of Yeonpyeong).

• In Jun 2002, the South Korean patrol boat PKM-357 (Chamsuri-class vessel) succumbed to damage and sank in battle — with 6 killed and 18 wounded — when it was hosting the 2002 FIFA World Cup.​
• I note that for Korea, the replacement for the Chamsuri-class is the Yun Youngha-class missile patrol vessel or PKX-A(PKG), that is armed with 4 ASCMs. Even the PKX-B variant includes 130 mm guided rockets on the stern, on top of a 76mm main gun.​
• Learning from the Nov 2010 bombardment of Yeonpyeong, the South quickly acquired a long range precision missile strike capability.​

Because if so, see the 2007 inter-Korea summit (where Roh reportedly agreed to surrender ROK sovereignty in the West Sea-affirmed in 2018-and also IIRC reportedly agreed with KJI to discuss removal of US troops from the peninsula. I say "reportedly" because one of Roh's staffers destroyed the transcripts afterwards). Or is it only bad when Trump is doing it?
Good point and I like the elegance of your expression. I would need to think about how to respond to your post accurately describing the South Koreans as their own worse enemy.

By way of clarification, I am not a fan of the current Moon administration. In April 2018, Moon and Kim signed the Panmunjeom Declaration — which is now no longer relevant. Back in 2018, they agreed to work together to reduce sharp military tensions, avoid war, and try to build an enduring peace regime between the two Koreas. As for the nuclear dimension of the talks, the two sides acknowledged the common goal of completely denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula with support and cooperation from the international community.

I am even less impressed with the Trump administration's many foreign policy failures, especially his latest Middle East "Peace" plan. See: Mid East Peace Plan/Palestine
Is holding summits where we agree to ridiculous demands of the Norks to keep summits going bad with no expectation that they will work? If so, see the Leap Day agreement (which lasted whole weeks before nK broke it) or to go really far back, the agreement we signed with them to release the PUEBLO sailors...and then immediately and publicly renounced as soon as those guys were in our hands again?
These are fantastic examples. Thank you for sharing.
Or is it only bad when Trump does it?
The reflex is to review the impact of American actions on others and present an alternate view, Trump or otherwise. IMO, the issue is the inability of the current Trump Administration to attract talent to staff positions relating to foreign policy -- leading to being adrift in policy terms. For most American Presidents, the holding of summits, advances three foreign policy objectives:

(1) To strengthen relations with American counterparts in other countries;​
(2) To facilitate public-private sector and private-sector deals; and​
(3) To promote the priorities of the administration.​
How low do we have to set the bar for Trump (in his summits with Kim) in the terms of competence?

Q1: Did the Kim-Trump summit strengthen relations with American counterparts in Japan or Korea?​
Q2: Was there any attempt to review carrots available to encourage increased cooperation between Korea or Japan, to present a unified economic front to North Korea (and also China)?​
Q3: What were Trump Administration’s priorities that was advanced when he called for the summit with kim?​

I leave these rhethorical questions as food for thought.
Indeed, if we're going to promote a peaceful resolution to the problem of having too many Koreas on the Korean peninsula-and since 1994 or so, no one's really argued or probably even thought too hard about the obvious alternative course of action-Trump's love of dumb spectacle is actually helpful, since the Norks are going to demand it as well, and with Trump being so risible, it really costs the US little.
It is possible to argue that South Korea has no autonomy over its own unification policies that will gain traction with the North. Just behind the 250 km-long DMZ (which separates North and South Korea), South Korea has about 600,000 active and 3,100,000 reserve troops that are ready to guard against the North Korean threat.

- The DMZ is a 2 km-wide buffer, stretching coast to coast across the peninsula, lined by both sides with razor wire, heavy armaments and tank traps.
- It is 60 km (37 miles) from Seoul and 210 km (130 miles) from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang.
- Inside the DMZ is a Joint Security Area (JSA). The so-called peace village of Panmunjom, where the armistice that halted the Korean War was signed in 1953, is located in the 800-metre-wide and 400-metre-long JSA zone.
- A Military Demarcation Line (MDL) marks the boundary between the two Koreas.

If Americans prefer to go it alone, often times, your country has enough military power to go it alone, should it decide to act wisely or unwisely -- which gives rise to the usual recourse to American exceptionalism. The only problem with an unchallenged faith in American exceptionalism is makes it harder for the average American to understand why other countries may be less enthusiastic about US dominance, and are alarmed by what President Trump represents. Under Trump, foreign leaders are frequently irritated by what they see as U.S. hypocrisy, whether the subject is nuclear weapons proliferation, conformity with international law, sanctions on Iran, American trade wars, or the current American tendency to condemn the conduct of others while ignoring its own failings.

But more than that worry, the parameters for intra-Korean sphere of action have narrowed considerably. I honestly do not know what more the world can expect from President Moon at this point to show that he is no longer anti-American.
It's a price you're going to have to pay to move the peace movement forward. Yes, antagonizing the ROK over the cost of housing troops is dumb. But it's not like the ROKs elected a guy with long ties to a deeply anti-American segment of the ROK left before Trump was even a nominee.
Agreed. The Koreans have an aspirational ministry that can do nothing in the current climate. It is called the Ministry of Unification and it is an executive department. Setting a low bar at the start is important — like calling it an effort at normalisation of relations in the Korean Peninsular (which has not been achieved as the two Koreas are technically at war). Instead they have a high bar as the South Korean starting point for talks with the North. Anyone with common sense will know that they are setting themselves up for failure.
And let me be clear that I don't like Trump. I voted against him both in my party primary and in the general. But it's very easy for the media to single out Trump, when he's following the same path (if not in the same manner) as people before him, and not nearly as central to changes as many like to allege.
Thanks for explaining.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Chinese squid boats have been pillaging North Korean squid fisheries in the North Pacific. They have been taken excess of the combined total of the South Korean and Japanese squid fleets combined total for 2017 & 2018.

 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
South Korea began inducting the F-35A fighter jets in 2019 under a plan to deploy 40 units through 2021. The number of the STOVL F-35B to be introduced is expected to hover around 20 and further specified in line with the schedule to build the landing platform helicopter ship.

South Korea is much further down the path on their F-35A program (with their follow-on support and services contract in place) but much of their requirements for the STOVL is still uncertain. The low initial numbers of F-35B means Korean F-35B requirements is about half of Japan’s; and about 1/3 of Singapore’s required F-35B numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Background Info

1. North Korea maintains nearly 6,000 artillery systems within range of major South Korean population centers, which it could use to kill many thousands in just an hour, even without resorting to chemical or nuclear weapons. Rand researchers assessed the magnitude of this threat across five attack scenarios.
2. The strike scenarios assessed were (i) five minutes against a major industrial target, (ii) one minute along the DMZ, (iii) one minute against downtown Seoul, (iv) one hour along the DMZ, and (v) one hour against downtown Seoul. Estimated total casualties from the attacks ranged from about 4,500 to more than 200,000.

3. Forum members were arguing on the nature of threat presented by North Korean artillery to the South’s civilian population in the past — glad that we finally found a paper that attempts to make some estimates.

4. There are two countries in North East Asia with a system of conscription. Taiwan’s conscripts serve a period of four months. This is seen as insufficient to meet the stated purpose of bolstering manpower in times of conflict. With increasingly sophisticated weapon systems, Taiwanese draftees will need more time to master both their skills and equipment.

5. Born out of the Korean War and the decades-long standoff on the peninsula, South Korea’s mandatory service system sees draftees undergoing four weeks of basic training and around two years of total service time for all branches. The decreased basic training time is the result of an interesting doctrinal difference when compared to the training of conscripts in Finland, Singapore or Israel.

(i) In Finland, all men above 18 years of age are liable to serve either 165, 255 or 347 days. Rank-and-file reservists in Finland can get trained to become NCOs and existing NCOs trained into officers.
(ii) In Singapore, the National service duration for all men above 18 years of age is at least 22 months, with some volunteering to serve a little longer.
(iii) In Israel the National service duration for men has been set at 30 months since 2020.

After four weeks of training, South Korean draftees are integrated into regular units to fulfill manpower requirements for lower enlisted ranks and they don't receive the same specialized training and leadership opportunities as volunteer soldiers. For South Koreans, military service is: (a) 21 months in the Army/Marines; (b) 23 months in the Navy; and (c) 24 months in the Air Force. During their compulsory service, Korean draftees can only reach the rank of sergeant. In contrast, Israeli and Singaporean conscripts can get selected into NCO and officer cadet school after they have completed basic military training. Israeli basic military training is about 4 to 12 months, depending on the unit and Singaporean basic military training is about 9 weeks before they are sent to further courses for advanced training in their units or leadership schools.

6. See the above compilation of articles from Military Review, the Combat Studies Institute, monographs from students at the Command and General Staff College on North Korea over the years.

7. The Sunshine Policy is the theoretical basis for South Korea's foreign policy towards North Korea. Its official title is “
The Reconciliation and Cooperation Policy Towards the North” and based on Five Principles — which is why Kdramas have tried to humanise the North. But the reality of North Korea is nothing like Kdramas. My current Netflix favourite is "Crashing-on-you." It's a love story and comedy about a billionaire heiresse from South Korea landing in North Korea and falling in love with Communist military officer.

8. Under this Sunshine Policy, the South Korean government will donate US$10 million worth of humanitarian aid to North Korea through the World Food Programme in the next few months, the Ministry of Unification announced soon after the 41st Minister of Unification Lee In-young entered office on 27 July 2020.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
I'm not at all sure of that "keeping in mind that North Korea maintains nearly 6,000 artillery systems within range of major South Korean population centers". Looking at the estimated ranges, & the location of major population centres near the DMZ, that could be hard. It might require, for example, masses of medium-range artillery packed into some very small areas, able to target fairly small parts of a major population centre (e.g. some northern suburbs of Seoul), & leaving artillery thinly spread or limited to short-range weapons along most of the DMZ.

That's not to downplay the threat: there are still very large numbers of N. Korean guns & rocket launchers that can hit deep into Seoul - but not 6000, unless the DPRK has more long-range artillery than published estimates give.
 

Toptob

Active Member
I'm not at all sure of that "keeping in mind that North Korea maintains nearly 6,000 artillery systems within range of major South Korean population centers". Looking at the estimated ranges, & the location of major population centres near the DMZ, that could be hard. It might require, for example, masses of medium-range artillery packed into some very small areas, able to target fairly small parts of a major population centre (e.g. some northern suburbs of Seoul), & leaving artillery thinly spread or limited to short-range weapons along most of the DMZ.

That's not to downplay the threat: there are still very large numbers of N. Korean guns & rocket launchers that can hit deep into Seoul - but not 6000, unless the DPRK has more long-range artillery than published estimates give.
Wow you're right! I always hear that the DPRK has thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. But I just took a gander at google maps and the main metropolitan area is still 25 to 30 Km from the border. And although there are other big inhabited areas closer to the border, to rain down shells on Seoul they'd have to shoot pretty far. For normal ammunition they should be just in range of their heavy guns and indeed their rocket artillery.

However, as we can all agree, pointing artillery at someones civilian population is pretty aggressive behavior. And despite some problems the South Koreans have constructed a nation that can face and respond to such threats. Sadly there's much less of that in the Philippines. We can lament the corruption, as we should, but there's also corruption in Korea. Is their success just because their pie is bigger?

I think not, there are plenty of countries that are not so lavishly funded that still manage to present a credible defense to answer threats to the safety and prosperity of their population. But the Philippines are just in the last few years decommissioning WW2 era ships. And while it's certainly commendable that their crews have kept them at sea for so long. It is just irresponsible of their political overlords to not have replaced these ships long ago.

And if we look at the threats they are facing I can't blame anyone for thinking it's a lost cause to deal with China in the South China Sea. Their navy is one thing and they've built a very impressive armada over the past few decades. But their other "naval" forces are at least (if not more) impressive! The China Coast Guard has a lot of large long range patrol vessels that very much look to be a match of many naval ships in the area. But their enormous fleet of fishing boats loaded with angry "reservists" is maybe the scariest tool the Philippines navy will have to contend with.

That's the crazy thing, that one fishing boat that rams your ship. Has the backing of all that other force and you know they are just there to provoke and stake their claim. And it's hard to see how things could get better in the weird political climate the Philippines finds itself. I think there's little they could do if China chose to start building closer to their shores. And those island bases of the Chinese do look mighty impressive, so when they're established it might take a lot to reverse the situation.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In your latest round of KJU health news, KJU is in a coma!

As always, take all these reports with massive grain of salt, since people who really know what's going on with KJU aren't talking to the NIS/South Korean media.

More solid reports say that Kim's sister, Kim Yo-jong, is now head of the Organization and Guidance Department of the Korean Worker's Party
Yep, but it does make for a soap opera script - The Young & the Restless? However I think that Kim Yo-jong is definitely Kim Jong-un's successor and regardless of the circumstances, the NK public are being prepared for a female great leader.
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
However I think that Kim Yo-jong is definitely Kim Jong-un's successor and regardless of the circumstances, the NK public are being prepared for a female great leader.
As mostly an aside, I know there's a lot of discussion in the general media about how a female head of state would be a major challenge for the North Korean people to accept. I tend to fall in line with B. R. Myers in the overall theory that the it will not matter which of Kim Jong-Il's children are in charge as long as a child of Kim Jong-Il is in charge, and even then, it might expand to "a descendant of Kim Il-Sung" and still might work. I think much-proferred comments about "Confucianism" being an important driver for succession in the DPRK are overrated.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
As mostly an aside, I know there's a lot of discussion in the general media about how a female head of state would be a major challenge for the North Korean people to accept. I tend to fall in line with B. R. Myers in the overall theory that the it will not matter which of Kim Jong-Il's children are in charge as long as a child of Kim Jong-Il is in charge, and even then, it might expand to "a descendant of Kim Il-Sung" and still might work. I think much-proferred comments about "Confucianism" being an important driver for succession in the DPRK are overrated.
“A major challenge for the North Korean people to accept”, you’re kidding, right. Challenging anything in NK is a good way to get a bullet in the back of your head.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
As mostly an aside, I know there's a lot of discussion in the general media about how a female head of state would be a major challenge for the North Korean people to accept. I tend to fall in line with B. R. Myers in the overall theory that the it will not matter which of Kim Jong-Il's children are in charge as long as a child of Kim Jong-Il is in charge, and even then, it might expand to "a descendant of Kim Il-Sung" and still might work. I think much-proferred comments about "Confucianism" being an important driver for succession in the DPRK are overrated.
The basic laws (sort of constitution) of North Korea say that the leader of the country must be a member of the Kim family*. IIRC it's clear that means a descendant of Kim Il-Sung, but it doesn't specify male, even indirectly.

*Yes, that's right. N. Korea really is a hereditary monarchy. It's not just a habit, or due to the Kims ruthlessly purging potential rivals: it's in the constitution.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The basic laws (sort of constitution) of North Korea say that the leader of the country must be a member of the Kim family*. IIRC it's clear that means a descendant of Kim Il-Sung, but it doesn't specify male, even indirectly.

*Yes, that's right. N. Korea really is a hereditary monarchy. It's not just a habit, or due to the Kims ruthlessly purging potential rivals: it's in the constitution.
I did not realize the hereditary requirement was actually in the constitution. I wonder what “Kingslayer” Lenin would have thought about that? Likely communist ideals change when you are at the top of the power pyramid.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
North Korea isn't just a hereditary monarchy. The Kims are supernatural beings. Kim Il-Sung isn't dead: he's president forever, just delegating the day to day stuff to his descendants from the afterlife for the time being. And that's official.

According to the North Korean news media the Kims can break world records for a round of golf the first time one picks up a golf club (that's what Kim Jong-Il is officially claimed to have done the only time he played golf), tell their atom bomb designers how to improve their designs after a five minute look, affect the weather, etc., & their births, deaths & other significant life events are marked by displays by wildlife & meteorological phemonena, especially around Mt Paektu, the sacred mountain which features heavily in Korean mythology & folk religion.

The DPRK isn't communist. It's an absolute monarchy ruled by a god-king who owns everything & everybody. That's why the worst crimes you can commit in North Korea are those which show disrespect to the Kims. Talk of it as if it has anything to do with Lenin, or Marx is a mistake. It follows a much older model.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Just some South-Korean news....
At last.. the 52 years old UH-1 are now officially retired and replaced by the Surion.

Republic of Korea successfully launches first military communications satellite into space: ANASIS-II


Ministry of National Defense to invest 300 trillion and 700 billion won over a five year period
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The DPRK isn't communist. It's an absolute monarchy ruled by a god-king who owns everything & everybody. That's why the worst crimes you can commit in North Korea are those which show disrespect to the Kims. Talk of it as if it has anything to do with Lenin, or Marx is a mistake. It follows a much older model.
They've always been attracted more to the model of control of Stalinism than any of the class elements of communism (other than that they could make the Japanese landowners fit into the role of bourgeoisie pretty easily). Their version of the genesis of communist theory is always, "KIS read Marx and then it came to him in a dream". Most of their actual propaganda is closer to the racial superiority theories of Imperial Japan than anything the Soviets ever advocated.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
They've always been attracted more to the model of control of Stalinism than any of the class elements of communism (other than that they could make the Japanese landowners fit into the role of bourgeoisie pretty easily). Their version of the genesis of communist theory is always, "KIS read Marx and then it came to him in a dream". Most of their actual propaganda is closer to the racial superiority theories of Imperial Japan than anything the Soviets ever advocated.
Without diving too deep into the can worms, Stalinism was often more about external inspirations based on Stalin then any political-economic theory work done by Stalin himself. North Korea abandoned Marxism-Leninism iirc officially in the 90s, and practically long before that. Juche was being used as ideological terminology (though with changing meanings) since pre-WWII. The key differential came with defining the role of the individual in history. You can see how it went from there.
 
Top