Quantcast

Meanwhile: on the Korean Front

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
23,356
13,652
directly above the center of the earth
This scares the piss out of me. from todays New York Times
This seems like a scene out of Dr Strangelove

U.S. Bombers on Alert to Deploy as Warning to North Koreans
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has put 24 long-range bombers on alert for possible deployment within range of North Korea, both to deter "opportunism" at a moment when Washington is focused on Iraq and to give President Bush military options if diplomacy fails to halt North Korea's effort to produce nuclear weapons, officials said today.

The White House insisted today that Mr. Bush was still committed to a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Any decision to bolster the considerable American military presence near North Korea was simply what Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, called making "certain our contingencies are viable."

Mr. Rumsfeld, who Pentagon officials emphasized had not yet made a decision to send the bombers, was acting on a request for additional forces from Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, the Pacific commander, who concluded that North Korea's race to produce a nuclear weapon had significantly worsened the risks on the Korean Peninsula.

"This puts them on a short string," said a senior Pentagon official, who explained that the aircraft and crews were now ready to move out within a set number of hours should they receive the final deployment order.

The additional bomber force, which would be sent to Guam from bases in the United States along with surveillance planes, brings a potent capability to the region should Mr. Bush decide that he cannot allow North Korea to begin reprocessing its nuclear fuel into weapons.

The Pentagon's new alert status came as the International Atomic Energy Agency said it would meet on Feb. 12, in an emergency session, to declare North Korea in breach of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and refer the issue to the United Nations Security Council. Administration officials said today that they would seek a resolution there condemning North Korea, but that they would not take the next step — asking for economic sanctions or isolation of the country.

At the same time, administration officials, in private briefings to members of Congress, have confirmed that North Korea appears to be moving spent nuclear spent-fuel rods that have been in storage since 1994.

If reprocessed into plutonium, those rods would provide the raw material for upwards of a half dozen weapons — about one a month once the reprocessing plant is in full operation, experts say. That gives Mr. Bush a window of what one senior official said today was "a few weeks to a few months to decide if he wants to do something about Yongbyon," the nuclear complex, before the plutonium production is under way, and any military strike would risk spreading radioactive pollution around the Korean Peninsula.

Both White House and Pentagon officials insisted there were no current plans to attack the Yongbyon nuclear facility, the center of North Korea's plutonium project.

But the forward deployment to Guam would cut the bombers' flying time to the Korean Peninsula, and consideration of the move suggests that the Pentagon and the White House are concerned that they may need more power on short notice, even as many forces ordinarily based in the Pacific have been sent to the Middle East.

"We are clearly engaged in a discussion about what is appropriate should we find ourselves engaged in executing a military operation in Iraq," said one senior Defense Department official. "We want to make sure we have sufficient forces in place in the Korean Peninsula area to deter any opportunism."

The dozen B-52 bombers and another dozen B-1 bombers could certainly help the 37,000 American troops defending South Korea deter an attack from North Korea across the demilitarized zone. But American commanders in South Korea have long argued they already have sufficient forces to deter such an attack, or at least hold their ground until reinforcements could arrive.

There was no discussion, senior Pentagon officials said, about significant additions to American troops now based in South Korea.

The White House has never publicly discussed the possibility of attacking the reprocessing plant, and Mr. Bush has repeatedly said the United States "has no intention o of invading North Korea."

But that is a carefully formulated statement, leaving open the possibility that a North Korean move to produce weapons could force Mr. Bush to consider the advice of several leading Republican national security experts, who have argued that Mr. Bush cannot permit North Korea to have a significant nuclear arsenal.

"It's fair to say that there is a broad assumption in the administration now that Kim Jong Il is out to produce his weapons as fast as he can," said one senior official involved in the debate, referring to the North Korean leader. "We hope they can be dissuaded by diplomacy, pressure from us and from China and from Russia. But there are no guarantees any of that will work."

Admiral Fargo is considering repositioning some jet fighters already under his jurisdiction within the Pacific Command to bases closer to the Korean Peninsula, Pentagon officials said. The bombers under consideration would be a large addition to the Pacific Command arsenal.

Each B-1 bomber can carry up to two dozen one-ton, satellite-guided bombs. The payload of the giant B-52 is 70,000 pounds of bombs and missiles.

In addition, the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, now off the coast of Japan, remains available to Admiral Fargo. However, even before the current crisis with North Korea, the Kitty Hawk had been mentioned as the likely candidate should a fifth aircraft carrier be assigned to waters off Iraq. In that event, officials said, the Carl Vinson, now on the West Coast, would sail across the Pacific to take the place of the Kitty Hawk so that one aircraft carrier would always be in the region.

"It is standard practice for us to review our defensive posture for existing security commitments when U.S. forces are preparing for potential operations elsewhere in the world," said Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman on Asia-Pacific issues. "Such planning could result in the movement of forces, but only as a prudent measure to ensure that we maintain our ability to rapidly respond to contingencies if needed."

Thus, the Pentagon is challenged with how to balance several competing interests.

The military must continue carrying out deployments to Iraq — including thousands of marines based in California who otherwise await orders for contingencies throughout the Pacific — while making sure that other forces are put into place to deter North Korea.

Yet those new deployments must be crafted so they do not increase tensions in the region while diplomacy is given a chance.

"It's a very, very fine line," said one administration official.
 

patconnole

Monkey
Jun 4, 2002
396
0
bellingham WA
Oh jeez, I just thought of the lamest joke:

In reference to this line, "and any military strike would risk spreading radioactive pollution around the Korean Peninsula"

Maybe we should preemptively strike the plants with DU. HA HA HA:D
 

Broken

Chimp
Oct 15, 2002
29
0
somewhere but not sure where
Cant Presidents, Dictators, Kings, Princes and all the other leaders of countrys understand the fact that if they build or produce nuclear weapons and actually use them they are not only going to kill the enemy or whoever they are targeting but they are also going to kill themselves because of the retalitory(sp?) strikes. Too bad we cant disinvent these pieces of sh!t!!! Personally I dont want to glow in the dark or reach a billion degrees in a matter of milliseconds:nope:
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Originally posted by ohio
That was peace through EQUAL fire power.
Don't ever think that the Soviets were anywhere equal to the US in military (or any other) capability... We saw that after they folded. They were scared because we would NOT be bullied by and in the end our capitalist system enabled us to simply out spend and out engineer them...
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
Originally posted by N8
Don't ever think that the Soviets were anywhere equal to the US in military (or any other) capability... We saw that after they folded. They were scared because we would NOT be bullied by and in the end our capitalist system enabled us to simply out spend and out engineer them...
But didn't KNOW that until they folded. The peace was based on MADD (key part being "Mutually"), and we were scared too. If not as scared as them, at least scared ENOUGH. It would have been extremely destabalizing if at any time they believed we no longer feared them.

True on the last point though... we won because we could better afford the strategy.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Actually the stalemate had far less to do with Nuclear proliferation than with conventional means of warfare.

Both sides had the ability to turn each other into glass parking lots at least 20 years before the wall came down.

What gave us the decided edge was our ability to produce the infrastructure to project power in a conventional warfare theatre. The Soviet Union did not have the ability to mobilize it's troops in an "over the horizon" war. Our ability to put 1,000,000 troops on the ground anywhere in the world in less than a week was what crippled them.

We had the aircraft, and troop ships, and carriers to mobilize an enormous fighting force. They did not. The cost of construction of those infrastuctures coupled with the cost of maintaining their nuclear arsenal (particularly their submarine fleet, now rotting in Vladivostok and the Kola Penninsula, Ive seen both bases it is actually rather sad) and a few really nice aircraft systems (mig-29, and the SU-37) brought them to their knees.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by Damn True
Actually the stalemate had far less to do with Nuclear proliferation than with conventional means of warfare.

Both sides had the ability to turn each other into glass parking lots at least 20 years before the wall came down.

What gave us the decided edge was our ability to produce the infrastructure to project power in a conventional warfare theatre. The Soviet Union did not have the ability to mobilize it's troops in an "over the horizon" war. Our ability to put 1,000,000 troops on the ground anywhere in the world in less than a week was what crippled them.

We had the aircraft, and troop ships, and carriers to mobilize an enormous fighting force. They did not. The cost of construction of those infrastuctures coupled with the cost of maintaining their nuclear arsenal (particularly their submarine fleet, now rotting in Vladivostok and the Kola Penninsula, Ive seen both bases it is actually rather sad) and a few really nice aircraft systems (mig-29, and the SU-37) brought them to their knees.
Yes and no.

1,000,000 in a week? Our lift capability is big but....I guess you are just embellishing to make a point.

The Soviets never needed to mobilize a huge fighting force because the vast majority of it was already in place where it would most likely be used. They had the internal resources using rail and aircraft to move sufficient troops and equipment around within the USSR in fairly quick fashion to the two most likely places they were ever going to fight a major ground conflict. The rail transportation system (loading and off loading) that was developed to move our own heavy armor divisions to the water is based closely on the systems developed by the Soviet army. Additionally, it was never very likely that the Soviets would deploy large ground units outside of Eastern Europe, mother Russia or Siberia.

The quality and lethality of the weapons that the US began fielding beginning in the late 70's, especially with the Apache, M1A1 and on the bigger scale, Trident missile sub, were what put the Soviets under the bus (coupled with a busted economy and social reform). All of a sudden the numerical advantage that they had counted on was offset with technology that they could not match.