this is important.
north and south korea brace for war. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37329506/ns/world_news-asiapacific . were war to occur between these two nations it would not be a 7 to 10 days dust up. these two societies know how to fight, and they know how to go for the jugular.
there will be no calls on the telephone to warn the other guy to vacate his premises for the next days artillery barrage.
these are two militaries with fighting traditions, and they will close for "close quarters combat," and it will be extremely intense, and very, very, very bloody.
keep in mind that the united states has app. 28,500 troops stationed in south korea.
and, that north korea has baby nukes, "sputterers," i call 'em. and, if there aren't some nukes tucked away in storage in the souther part of the peninsula, you can paint me international dayglo orange, spray or brush, your choice.
this is, as they say, serious shit.
john jay @ 05.25.2010
update: a good friend and reader has taken me seriously to task on a number of aspects about this post, the first of which is a large omission.
and, that is the fact, of course, that north korea is already at war with south korea and has been since early in the 1950's. (this i knew, but did not put in the article.) "peace" has never been negotiated between the various parties contestant in that war, and only an uneasy armistice has kept open hostility at bay. involved in that war were north korea and china, (the russians by proxy and by "advisor's" who flew combat missions in russian made mig aircraft), and the south koreans, the united states, greece and turkey, among others, who fought under the banner and "command" of the united nations, though it was u.s. command structure that ran the show.
"peace" does not reign.
only negotiation along a "demilitarized" zone that runs the breadth of the korean peninsula, and in buildings in which military negotiators for both sides have stared icily at each other on a daily basis for years, the negotiators chosen mostly for their ability to sit all day without having to pee, so as not to show weakness to the other side.
my friend also excoriates me for minimizing the real damage that north korean "nukes" might cause, if not by blast effect than by contribution of radiation to the atmosphere. (these matters i did not sufficiently consider. mea culpa.) he has some experience and expertise in these matters, no little amount, by the way, after a long career in the military, retiring from the air force as a general grade officer.
here, he and i depart from being in strict agreement. the north korean nukes are so anemic that they are hard to detect, their blast effect producing so little seismic signature as to be practically indistinguishable from fair sized industrial accidents or conventional explosives going off.
he brings up the specter of a chernobyl like ejection of radioactive materials into the atmosphere upon the tactical and/or strategic explosion of nukes in korea. i don't think that any weapons that north korea has at its deployment is packed with nearly enough fissile materials, by some orders of magnitude, to be able to do that.
he has sent me some materials on the half life associated with uranium ores, and the isotope metals produced by nuclear and chemical treatment, such as u-235, u-238, u-239, u-240, 7-241 and so on and so forth.
it is sobering, these considerations that he explores.
if any of you out there are particularly well versed in such matters, i would appreciate being brought up to speed on them, and if i deserve criticism for not being sufficiently alarmed by the prospect of some of the considerations at hand here, ... , well, chastised and excoriate away.
the issues presented by all of this are significantly more important than my delicate little ego, and if i need "brought up short" or "severely and sternly rebuked" in these matters, well, so be it.
and, old friend _____ (who shall remain nameless until he tells me to disclose his name) and "dutch uncle," thank you for the heads up.
john jay @ 05.25.2010