Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

North Korean Military.

Discussion in 'Geostrategic Issues' started by F-15 Eagle, Mar 24, 2008.

Share This Page

  1. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,072
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    What unilateral action? Bombing pipelines? In the territory of another nuclear power? And given that China is rapidly building pipelines to Russia, what other consequences could this sort of action have? How would the EU react to a US stance of this kind?

    Think it through. Context matters. Actions have consequences beyond the intended, even if the intended goals are achieved.
     
  2. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    No, the POTUS is not 'painting' the US into a corner. Try crayon...

    Unfort there are all kinds of potential unilateral actions. Part of the unfort bit is that while we and others might think it through, the person making the statements and decisions might not be...
     
  3. Blackshoe

    Blackshoe Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    3

    As Joshua Stanton
    points out:

     
  4. John Fedup

    John Fedup Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,520
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    This link quotes H.R. McMaster's comment comparing America's situation today to that at the end of the Carter administration. That is pretty debatable IMHO but what is not comparable is the dysfunctional government that exists today and the huge government debt that will slowly strangle even the most moderate budgetary decisions on virtually everything for years to come.

    https://breakingdefense.com/2017/12/shutdown-looms-north-korean-war-closer-uk-pm-mocked/
     
  5. gazzzwp

    gazzzwp Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Jersey UK
    Does anyone know what is preventing the US from boarding and seizing these oil tankers that they claim are originating from Russia and China? They must have the means to prevent them from reaching their destination somehow surely?
     
  6. t68

    t68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    NSW

    The UN from what I gather other wise you come under flagged nations laws.

    US Seeks UN Permission to Board North Korean Ships
     
  7. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Why does it have to be the US? Why not the South Koreans or Japanese? If they are Russian and Chinese flagged ships in international waters, any navy other than the navy of the flagged ships would have to be 200% sure, under international law, that those ships were / are committing illegal acts. And even then it would create a very serious diplomatic incident. How would the US react if Chinese or Russian naval vessels intercepted, boarded and arrested US flagged vessels? There would be screaming for blood from all sections of the US population. The US doesn't have carte blanche to act how it likes anywhere in the world. Such an operation would have to be done under auspices of the UN. However after being censured by the UN, the US has spat the dummy, chucked all of its toys out of the cot and cut funding to the UN, so I don't think that it would be a wise move.
     
  8. tonnyc

    tonnyc Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    5
    For whatever it's worth, South Korea is already taking action. Reading the article, the ship has been impounded since November 24th, long before the news broke out. I also suspect that the US intelligence has shared the information with their South Korean counterpart long before the US President tweeted it in his personal Twitter account.
     
    Kaki and gazzzwp like this.
  9. gazzzwp

    gazzzwp Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Jersey UK

    Under normal conditions I would fully agree. The US however is being repeatedly threatened with a nuclear attack. One may argue that that is grounds to at least investigate if not board and seize a suspicious vessel. A bit of assertiveness from the US at this time could be decisive in this stand off.
     
  10. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,072
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    Given the US track record on unilateral action, I suspect letting the RoK be the ones to impound the ship is a wise decision. Important to note the RoK has a good relationship with Russia, including cooperation on sensitive areas like military industrial development and their space program, so I suspect they are in a much better position to ask some questions of Russia regarding these vessels.
     
    gazzzwp likes this.
  11. gazzzwp

    gazzzwp Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Jersey UK
    Progress at last. Looks like you were spot on there Feanor!

    South Korea seizes another ship suspected of transferring oil to North
     
  12. t68

    t68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    NSW
    do you think they have the logistics to support them?
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  13. John Fedup

    John Fedup Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,520
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Can't even feed them let alone provide all the other military logistic stuff!
     
    ngatimozart and t68 like this.
  14. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,072
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    I don't think they can. They have ~1.4 million currently and they have to use them for farm work at harvest time.
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  15. gazzzwp

    gazzzwp Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Jersey UK
  16. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    If it's done under a UN mandate fine. If the US does it unilaterally then not so good. Since the initial intervention in Korea in 1950, was under a UNSC mandate, then the possibility exists that the mooted maritime intervention could be legal under that UNSC resolution. However with the current POTUS and Kim Jong Un having an insult and who has the biggest dick competition, such action will be quite fraught with danger. It only takes one idiot to overreact for the whole thing to turn to custard big time. The current POTUS does not induce confidence in his ability or willingness to defuse the situation.

    The other concern is how will Russia and China react if and when their ships are boarded. It won't be warm fuzzies, especially if it's an unilateral action by the US. This is not some situation where the worse that could happen is conventional war, but a situation where a nuclear war could erupt.
     
  17. t68

    t68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    NSW

    Well the US has a track record of doing this so it's not unsurprising that it may happen, the last time it also involved Russia and no UN decleration but by a vote of the Orginisation of American State. If they do go by a UN vote both China and Russia would just veto it?
     
  18. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Definitely a Russian and / Chinese veto. The OAS don't really have a say because it's outside their region. However they could make their view known in international fora.

    Let's transpose the geography and it was Canada being the nuclear state next to the US, with both countries having a historical friendly relationship. What say the UK decided to attack that nation because of it giving the world the middle finger, is hurling gratuitous insults at the UK and threatening to destroy the UKs supply of tea and beer, what would the US reaction be? They'd be screaming blue murder and threaten retaliation if the Poms attacked the Canada because they don't want nuclear war next door, nor do they want the Poms encamped in Canada with a large military force.

    Just look at the US reaction to Soviet nukes being deployed in Cuba. Yet the US had nukes based in Turkey, basically next door to the USSR.
     
  19. t68

    t68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    NSW

    Yep 100% agree with all that hence my critic message about the Cuban Missile Criss and the quarantine was more of my point. If China/Russia veto I guess it's up too weather or not the ships which get boarded are prepared to call it an act of war it's not up to the North Koreans unless it's there own.