North Korea: Horrors Within, Threats Without

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt) Jan. 15 — In the far north of North Korea, in remote locations not far from the borders with China and Russia, a gulag not unlike the worst labor camps built by Mao and Stalin in the last century holds some 200,000 men, women and children accused of political crimes. A month-long investigation by NBC News, including interviews with former prisoners, guards and U.S. and South Korean officials, revealed the horrifying conditions these people must endure — conditions that shock even those North Koreans accustomed to the near-famine conditions of Kim Jong Il’s realm. (end excerpt)

(excerpt) Among NBC News’ findings:
At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, some 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former inmates say results in the death of 20 percent to 25 percent of the prison population every year.
Products made by prison laborers may wind up on U.S. store shelves, having been “washed” first through Chinese companies that serve as intermediaries.
Entire families, including grandchildren, are incarcerated for even the most bland political statements.
Forced abortions are carried out on pregnant women so that another generation of political dissidents will be “eradicated.”
Inmates are used as human guinea pigs for testing biological and chemical agents, according to both former inmates and U.S. officials. (end excerpt)


And this is the regime which is apparently going to be developing nukes, nukes and more nukes in the near future. Any suggestions anyone?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/859191.asp...sntv&cp1=1

[Billy LTL]

The existance of terrible concentration camps in North Korea has been widely documented for years. This fact has never been enough to provoke action against North Korea.

The fact that North Korea possesses chemical and biological weapons and has the delivery systems available to wreak havoc on South Korea and Japan has been known for years and has never been enough provoke action against them.

The fact that some 10% of their population has died of starvation in the past few years while the NK leadership continues to build up and arm their military has never been enough provoke action against them.

Bush, in my opinion, made a colossal mistake when he publicly put North Korea on his "axis of evil" list.

To put it in no-limit hold em terms Bush, holding a decent hand, pushed half his stack into an empty against a tough opponent he or his advisors had to know from experience would either fold or raise him all-in.

The problem with Bush's strategy is that at the time of the "axis of evil" list, North Korea wasn't involved in the pot in any way so folding and waiting for a better shot cost them nothing. Even worse for Bush, his big bet just sat there on the table with the North Koreans simply deciding to simply call "time".

When it became apparent that the US was going to war with Iraq Kim Jong-il realised his time had come. "Raise you all-in goof. What you going to do about that?"

The danger North Korea presents to its immediate neighbours ie Korea (and by association the US, South Korea's closest ally) and Japan is massive.

Experts have estimated that North Korea could rain 500,000 artillery shells an hour onto Seoul. It's been further estimated that if a war lasted for a month the South's dead would reach numbers of over 1,000,000. Further, North Korea does have the missile abilty to deliver explosives, biological and chemical weapons to Japan, a country which hosts seven U.S. bases.

A war, which all experts agree would eventually see North Korea's defeat, would be devasting, and not only to the region.

Outgoing South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's sunshine policy was working, slowly and surely bringing NK into the 21st century. Why antagonize an enemy when you've already got an abundance of them to deal with at the moment.

Suggestions? The Bush administration must swallow its pride (they seem to be doing this) and reach a compromise with North Korea on its sole demand - the signing of a nonaggression pact between the two countries. Such a pact is probably not going to be forthcoming from the US but written guarantees promising the US will not attack the North are looking good.

[MMMMMM]

A good response, and I'll need to think further about several things you mentioned.

Among the various reasons for the "axis of evil" label is the fact that North Korea sells weapons to our enemies.

Perhaps the U.S. could, as a condition for U.S. guarantees, hold that North Korea must stop its nuclear arms programs and provide means of verification, and that it must also refrain from arms sales to certain countries and/or terrorists groups (and the U.S. could possibly sweeten the deal with offers of more aid too). Maybe such a package deal, which might truly appeal to both parties, could be worked out (and then there's the sticky question of verification, since the DPRK obviously cannot be blindly trusted on such matters).

[IrishHand]

The only reason things like the N. Korean concentration caps are coming to light now is to justify future military intervention against them. As noted above, the atrocities committed by N. Korea (or Iraq or Iran or a ton of other countries) are things we've known about for years. There was just never any exciting reason to do anything about it.

Now, of course, we're lining up countries to give our military some practice, and evidently, N. Korea is 3rd in line behind Afghanistan and Iraq. (Interesting that they're in increasing order of military competence - must just be a coincidence. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img])

We realized after Afghanistan that we wouldn't get a blank check to attack whomever we wanted. I'm certain that we'd have crushed Iraq by now if it had had the widescale support that the Afghanistan invasion had. Sadly, it appers that the US public wants justification for each and every country we're going to attack - they're fickle like that. So, rather than have these months of downtime as there are between Afghanistan and Iraq, we'll just start the propaganda machine much earlier. This way, once we dispose of Iraq, public opinion will already be in favor of smacking around N. Korea. Saves time and money - and that's just good business.

It's a basic equation...you just tell your people they're under attack, fill their heads with tales of atrocities and unjustices, and then assure them that our military will make the situation better. Ah...the joys of military politics - been working for over a hundred years now!

[MMMMMM]

IrishHand: "It's a basic equation...you just tell your people they're under attack, fill their heads with tales of atrocities and unjustices, and then assure them that our military will make the situation better. Ah...the joys of military politics - been working for over a hundred years now!"

The DPRK may be too formidable a foe to attack unless they pose very serious and irreconcilable threats to our security and we decide have no choice, the human rights abuses notwithstanding.

I posted the article more in the spirit of observing the nature of the regime which soon may be cranking out nukes at a pretty good clip.

It would be nice if we could just right the wrongs in the DPRK without too much trouble, but the bloodshed involved in doing so by force would far outweigh that involved in ousting Saddam by force. The DPRK has a standing million-man army, and can mobilize millions more in fairly short order.

Yes, the Bush Administration may be using a sequential approach...which would make sense, assuming these countries must be dealt with, perhaps by force. I also happen to favor the idea of using Iraq as a temporary base to swat Hizbollah and any other terrorist groups in the region which have openly declared their intentions to attack the USA.

Nobody has to tell us we're under attack and will be attacked again....that's pretty obvious. Your last paragraph seems rather condescending towards the average American's intelligence, and needlessly cynical in tone.

[brad]

'aYour last paragraph seems rather condescending towards the average American's intelligence, and needlessly cynical in tone. '

sk joe on the street and im pretty sure when u mention babies being thrown out of incubators in kuwait in 91 or 92 or whatever he'll remember that (those iraqi bastards!).

of course he wont remember because he was never told (on nightly news) that the whole story was a p.r. thing.

which doesnt mean the iraqis are good though.

[IrishHand]

the bloodshed involved in doing so by force would far outweigh that involved in ousting Saddam by force.

Not really. N. Korea is just as impotent as Iraq in terms of being able to deal with the first (and only really important phase) of any war we're going to engage in in the forseeable future - the aerial one. We'll send in tons of fighters and bombers and obliterate whatever air power they can muster. Then we move onto obliterating their communications and radar networks. Once that's been taken care of, it doesn't matter if you're defending with a million men or 10 million - it's only a question of mopping up demoralized and confused troops (just ask Poland in '39, France in '40, Russia in '41 and Iraq in the early 90s - all competent militaries on paper, all worthless in practice because of air impotence). Any time one side has complete air superiority and, in our case, complete material superiority, the result is a foregone conclusion.

Trust me - if we apply ourselves, as we surely would, our casualties will be minimal. If we really wanted, we could probably eradicate a nation's military without setting foot on their soil - but the Army and Marines would get upset eventually at being left out.

[MMMMMM]

What makes you so sure you know more about the DPRK's military capabilities than I do?;-) Of course we would win that way. But South Korea would likely pay an immense price. We really couldn't stop the DPRK from rolling over Seoul if they decided to attack... we just tell them we'll squash them if they do it. Also, the DPRK can and probably would launch chemical weapons at our regional bases, not to mention possibly using their handful of nukes. A war with the DPRK would be harder, and entail more casualties and danger to our allies, than war with Iraq. The DPRK has the capacity to inflict immense damage on Japan. The end result might not be in doubt, but the number killed would be greater, even if we're talking only about the number of DPRK army troops killed. They are also fanatical in a way that Saddam's army isn't. By the way, did you ever see the PBS special on DPRK which showed the CHILDREN at a massive rally holding candles aloft and shouting nationalistic, anti-US slogans with fierce looks on their faces? The entire country is run like a cult with an iron fist, and anti-US hatred there runs very deep...it's almost surreal to watch. I strongly suspect we would have to kill an awful lot North Koreans before they would surrender (absent use of nukes perhaps).

[IrishHand]

I strongly suspect we would have to kill an awful lot North Koreans before they would surrender (absent use of nukes perhaps).

That's why we send in the Marines before the Army. [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

I understand your perspective that they could kill more people than Iraq will be able to. However, I tend to suspect that they'd behave in a somewhat sensible manner militarily. Iraq could have killed a lot of people if that had been the goal in the first Gulf War - Kuwaitis prime among them. However, they vainly used their military capabilities in order to slow our steamroller. I tend to suspect that N. Korea would do the same. History shows us that countries which butcher civilians don't get more favorable peace terms in the event that peace is an alternative.

N. Korea's biggest problem isn't the proximity of our many bases in Asia - it's the fact that we can park carriers right off her shores, and can use our warships instead of conventional artillery when that's called for. Really - a combination of sea-based armament and aerial bombardment would surely do the trick.

As for them marching through S. Korea before we could stop them - we've got troops there already. Certainly not as many as they do, but more than enough to slow and or stop a military advance. Frankly, the moment a carrier is nearby, we can completely stop any offensive simply by bombing it into oblivion. There's currently no defense for a large mass of bombs raining down on your forces. In order for them to succeed in invading S. Korea, we'd pretty much have to let them (which we might - that would enable us to get a higher level of control over the region when we win it back).

Don't get me wrong - I understand where you're coming from. On paper, they have a lovely military - plenty of men, tanks, artillery, etc. Operationally, however, it's useless against us. In order to come up with any sort of defense against a US military invasion, you need to: (a) have submarines to deter us from owning the seas (only China has this), and (b) have an air force that we can't knock out in a day to deter us from owning the air. Barring that, it doesn't matter how big your Army is.

[Clarkmeister]

M,

Why aren't you as up in arms about China? By my understanding the atrocities committed in China make North Korea look like a bunch of amateurs.

Unlike Iraq and North Korea, China poses a credible threat to our nation. Unlike those countries, China is an international bully, seeking to extend its borders. Taiwan and similar border issues aren't going away.

We are real good at hand selecting our opponents. Just don't tell me we pick them because of atrocities they commit or the level of threat to our country. Thats crap.