Monday, June 01, 2009

Ill Djuche

If we have a war against North Korea the question of interest is how Americans will see it. Will the world shrug and call it a fair game, and about time? How different will American and world, reaction be to a war waged by an Obama administration? We know in advance what we can expect from the kiddie-commies of the West. Here's a taste of that from American rich-kid Trotskyites:

Thursday, 28 May 2009
"Defend North Korea against imperialist threats

THE government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) [North Korea] announced yesterday that it would ‘no longer be bound’ by the armistice that brought fighting in the Korean War to an end in 1953 and that ‘the Korean peninsula will go back to a state of war’.

This followed Tuesday’s decision by the South Korean regime to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, organised by United States imperialism. The US has declared that it will impose a naval blockade on North Korea, stopping and searching DPRK vessels.

Refusing to be put under siege in this way, the DPRK declared: ‘Any tiny hostile acts against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement of our sovereignty. We will immediately respond with a powerful military strike.’


The DPRK has every right to develop the weaponry necessary to defend itself against imperialism, including nuclear weapons and rockets.


The working class of the whole region must come to the defence of the DPRK and the workers of North Korea, and shut down the US bases, through mass political and industrial action.

The regime in Pyongyang, because of its counter-revolutionary Stalinist politics, is opposed to such a revolutionary mobilisation of the working class in the region.

The unification of Korea will be achieved only through the struggle for workers’ power in countries like Japan and the extension of the World Socialist Revolution, under the leadership of the Fourth International.

That was for a cheap laugh. We do have a serious problem, though, of Americans who would likely cheer a war against the world they could blame on their own homeland and on their own people. It is a commonplace to be what is, in effect, a traitor. Trotskyites are a joke, but what of the 20 year olds who live in the coastal areas of our nation who voted for Obama in the deluded expectation that he would somehow transform the world into Utopia with the wave of his hand? What is stronger? the hatred of our nation (and so many seem to think it is hateful, because that's what all the cool people say,) the love of "action" that gives bored suburban kids something
immediately dramatic to think about, or the brainless conformity of the majority Obama supporters who will do what Obama says because he's cool? Will our nation's people engage in a war against North Korea-- on behalf of our nation?

This would be an Obama war. More, it would be a serious war. This would be a war that would require the efforts of the nation as a whole rather than technology and experts. What would happen if American kids had to be involved as a matter of retaining our nation's being?

Below we see not a hobby-commie like the Trotskyites but a fully committed lunatic. How will skate-boarding teen-agers react to a war against people like him on a massive scale?

Han Ho Suk,* Director Center for Korean Affairs, "N Korea Military Tactics In A War With US: A Strategy Of Massive Retaliations Against US Attacks." 4-24-2003.

North Korea has not only the military power but also the political will to wage total war against the United States.

(An English abstract of a paper)

1. North Korea Can Engage the US in Total War North Korea is one of the few nations that can engage in a total war with the United States.


North Korea, which can and is willing to face up to the sole military superpower of the world, cannot be called a weak nation. Nevertheless, Western press and analysts distort the truth and depict North Korea as an "impoverished" nation, starving and on the brink of imminent collapse. An impoverished, starving nation cannot face down a military superpower. Today few nations have military assets strong enough to challenge the US military.


In the morning of March 1, 2003, an American RC-132S spy plane, Cobra Ball, took off from a US airbase in Okinawa, and cruised along the East coast of North Korea collecting electronic signals. The US intelligence suspected that North Korea was about to test a long-range missile and the plane was there to monitor the suspected missile launch.

When the US plane reached a point about 193 km from the coast of North Korea, two MiG-29 and two MiG-21 fighter planes showed up unexpectedly. The North Korean planes approached within 16 m and signaled the US plane to follow them. The US pilot refused to follow the command and left the scene posthaste. The US plane was tailed by the hostiles for about 22 min but let the US spy plane go. There are two key points to be observed here.

First, the hostile planes waited for the US plane at the Uhrang airbase, located about 200 km from the point of air encounter. They knew that the US plane was coming. The North Korean planes flew 200 km to intercept the US plane. Did the US plane see them coming? If it did, why no evasive action? After intercepting the US plane, the hostile planes dogged it for 22 min. Why no American planes for the rescue? The US crew must have informed the base of the danger they were in, but no action was taken by the base. If Kim Jong Il had given the command, the MiGs would have shot down the US plane and returned to their base before the US could have scrambled war planes.


2. North Korea's Massive Retaliation Strategy

North Korea's war plan in case of an US attack is total war, not the 'low-intensity limited warfare' or 'regional conflict' talked about among the Western analysts. North Korea will mount a total war if attacked by the US.


3. c) North Korean soldiers are well indoctrinated

The US commanders admit that North Korean soldiers are highly motivated and loyal to Kim Jong Il, and that they will fight well in case of war.


North Korean soldiers are taught to fight to the bitter end. In September 1996, a North Korean submarine got stranded at Kangrung, South Korea, and its crew abandoned the ship. Eleven of the crew committed suicide and the rest fought to the last man except one who was captured. In June 1998, another submarine got caught in fishing nets at Sokcho and its crew killed themselves. Such is the fighting spirit of North Korean soldiers.


In September 1996, a North Korean submarine was stranded near Kang-nung and the crew were forced to abandon the ship and land on South Korea. The sub had two special forces agents who had finished a mission in South Korea and were picked up by the sub before the sub ran into a rock. The two men fought off an army of South Korean troops and remained at large for 50 days, during which they killed 11 of the pursuers.


MiG21s are North Korea's main workhorse. The MiG21 debuted in 1965 in Vietnam and proved itself as an effective attack fighter. In 1999, North Korea bought 40 MiG21s from Kazakhstan. During the Vietnam War, MiG17s shot down dozens of American planes. North Korea sent more than 200 pilots to fight in the Vietnam War. They were tasked to defend Hanoi and shot down scores of US planes. North Korea sent 25 pilots to Syria during the 3rd Arab-Israeli war of 1966, and 30 pilots to Egypt and Syria during the 4th Arab-Israeli war of 1973. In 1976, North Korea sent more than 40 pilots to Syria.


*Mr. Han Ho-seok, a pro-Pyongyang theoretician of reunification problems and director of the Center for Korean Affairs based in New York.

A war against North Korea is a serious undertaking. America is not, contrary to much popular opinion, a warrior nation. We are a trading nation, and one should know from common sense it's better business to trade with than to kill ones business partners. Common sense is far less fun than meeting ones friends at a public and televised demonstration of ones deep moral outrage about... well, who cares? America is easy. Except this time it might be Obama to emote over rather than Bush. A war against North Korea might not be so easy as against the tiny shit-hole nations we've invaded in recent decades. How might our Left deal with that? Being a traitor to ones nation is small potatoes when there's nothing at stake. How deep is the corruption of our Left? Will they turn on their "ethnic" pretty boy? And what of the pose afterward? How will the Left justify a war against Korea in which likely millions of people will die? Who will they blame this time?

Jack Lee, "WAR WITH NORTH KOREA," Post Scripts. October 11, 2006

, North Korea's total war plan has two components: massive conventional warfare and weapons of mass destruction. If the US mounts a preemptive strike on North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plants, North Korea will retaliate with weapons of mass destruction: North Korea will mount strategic nuclear attacks on the US targets. The US war planners know this and have drawn up their own nuclear war plan. In a nuclear exchange, there is no front or rear areas, no defensive positions or attack formations as in conventional warfare. Nuclear weapons are offensive weapons and there is no defense against nuclear attacks except retaliatory nuclear attacks. For this reason, North Korea's war plan is offensive in nature: North Korea's war plan goes beyond repulsing US attackers and calls for destruction of the United States. korea-bcd-001-s.jpg

NOTE: North Korea maintains the world's third largest arsenal of chemical weapons - which includes mustard gas, phosgene, sarin and V-agents. Along with these chemical agents, the DPRK also maintains an active biological weapons program and have developed a significant amount of anthrax, botulism, plague, and smallpox.

From North Korea's short-term blitzkrieg strategy envisions a successful surprise attack in the early phase of the war to occupy some or all of South Korea before the arrival of US reinforcements on the Korean Peninsula. North Korean ground forces, totaling some 1 million soldiers, are composed of some 170 divisions and brigades including infantry, artillery, tank, mechanized and special operation forces. Of the total, about 60 divisions and brigades are deployed south of the Pyongyang-Wonsan line. North Korea possesses the world's fifth largest military and is the most militarized nation in proportion to population (estimated at 22 million. Military spending is $5.2 billion or 22.9% percent of North Korea’s GDP.

abram19s.jpgMost of North Korea's armored units consist of old Soviet built T-54 and T-55 tanks, some of those tanks are now approaching 50 years old. It's highly suspect how effective their numerically superior forces would be against a smaller, but better armored force used by ROK and US defenders. In Iraq, the U.S. 70 ton Abram's tanks (see photo left) were often outnumbered 5 to 1, yet quickly defeated the Iraqi's best MBT, the Russian built T-55 tank. Even the U.S. high speed Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, used to carry troops, obliterated the older and slower Iraqi tanks on contact, with it's 20 mm rapid fire cannon, using depleted uranium bullets that penetrated up to 5 inches of steel armor.

It's interesting to note than in 1998 the U.S. and Korean forces drew up a contingency plan called "War Plan 5027" that used preemptive strikes on North Korea in the event there were major signs of an imminent invasion by North Korea. North Korea reacted by drawing up its own war plan for preemptive strikes. Little has changed since this plan was created. Today, only the Second Infantry Division and the Seventh Air Force are committed to battle with the potential North Korean invaders. The rest of our forces, numbering only a few hundred, are in logistics, communications, and intelligence and small Navy and Marine Corps units. South Korean forces (ROK) number about 600,000, but fewer than 60% of this number could be considered fighting units, the rest are dedicated to support roles.

Recently declassified information indicated, the United States withdrew the last nuclear weapons from South Korea in December 1991. The initiative was a result of President George H. Bush's unilateral disarmament in September 1991 and the withdrawal involved approximately 60 artillery shells and 40 B61 bombs. Now that North Korea has nuclear weapons this unilateral decision appears short sighted, to say the least.

A war with North Korea at this time with our limited forces to resist an unlimited, total war, would make Iraq look like a walk in the park. However, as costly as this war might be in the beginning, even the most pessimistic analysts agree, the invasion would fail and it would result in the complete destruction of Kim Jung-il's government and probably the reunification of the two Koreas.

How would American traitors justify all they claim to be against? And if they find they can't, what are they going to think of themselves? Maybe they'll elect Obama as king to assuage their moral pain.


truepeers said...

Hmm, what do I know but I don't see N. Korea as a serious conventional force: the population is half starved and its strategic resources rather limited. Sure, with a good use of surprise, they might go gangbusters for a short time, until they quickly ran out of gas, but with their antique weapons systems they could then be systematically destroyed, I imagine. That is why they are now putting efforts into the nuclear program, which is the one threat that will be taken seriously and might limit a response to their attacks. And it seems to me they are presently testing Obama to look for signs that he is weak and will not really threaten their nuke program. They want to know how risky it is to build up their blackmail option, possibly in tandem with Iran.

But if they invaded the south and America went to war, would that cause great qualms among the AMerican left? Some, but I wouldn't imagine too many. As you suggest, the thing about white guilt is that it is not based on a serious commitment to ending pain and suffering among the poor and non-white wherever they are - where is/was the help for Darfur, or Congo, or Rwanda, for example? - nor is it about upholding notions of justice irregardless of race or wealth. It is all about insuring one can appear to have some guarantee of self-denying moral superiority when one has to come to terms with one's own "privilege" in direct contact with an Other who represents some larger victim identity with serious claims on your privilege. The Other's suffering has to plausibly be seen to benefit oneself and I rather doubt the obviously self-imposed Nork suffering can fit that bill, whatever our trade with SOuth Korea and Japan.

And East Asians are not, in American eyes, an obvious victim group. The North Koreans may be the most pathetic, but as a whole East Asians are no longer readily considered candidates for affirmative action. As I understand it, some American universities now seek to limit enrollments from East Asian-Americans who are seen, in some respects, as too successful and perhaps not sufficiently guilty for it.

Mass destruction of human lives will lead to guilt but as long as the Norks are seriously fighting, and throwing the first punches, I doubt there will be much opposition to the obliteration of their military capacity. Who would then want to take responsibility for the country will be interesting however. Would even the SOuth Koreans want to invest the billions and re-educate the millions for a generation in this fallen land, without much American and other help? Maybe then the Norks could become poor terrorists trying to blackmail America into providing it aid that it might grow from beyond its war-destroyed poverty.

Moslems are today the symbolic leaders of third-world anti-Americanism for reasons worth reflecting on (having to do with the longer history of Islam and the West). Not just anyone can be taken seriously in this role, especially when they are intent on killing their racial "brothers and sisters". The Norks have little ideological capital because they are not a vanguard for the billions whose suffering invokes white guilt and they were not, with a short exception at MacArthur's battlefield apex, ever occupied, let alone colonized, by a Western power. Only the crazies still enamored of the Stalinist past will take any interest in Nork propaganda. Their cause is truly past and in destroying them America will not be advancing a vision of the future that will do much to provoke a reaction from the nihilism of the bicoastal secularists.

truepeers said...

Having said all that, I'm not entirely convinced Obama will fight if push comes to shove. Everything he seems to do is about abandoning AMerica's traditional allies, as if preparing the world for an age without any superpower. And besides, I really think financing anything, let alone what he really wants - medicare, etc. - is going to get difficult very quickly.

Roger Helbig said...

I would be very interested in the source material that discusses these battles between Bradley Fighting Vehicle and Iraqi T-55 tanks. The Abrams did on at least one if not many more occasions survive first round hits from T-55s before killing the attackers with one round each from 120mm main gun firing a DU kinetic energy penetrator sabot round. The Bradley carries a 25mm chain gun with DU penetrators and I expect that it would be about as effective as the 30mm DU penetrator fired by the A-10 Warthog (which also would be employed in Korea if the North came streaming across the border), but the Bradley would be much more vulnerable to attack from the T-55s. Thanks, for the information.


(If anyone reading this is Desert Storm or OIF tank crew member who used DU munitions against Iraqi tanks, please, do write to me)

Dag said...

Good luck, Roger. As you know, many people come across information on the Internet long after it was first posted, so you may get lucky today or sometime later. If this helps, I'm certainly happy.

Regarding the East Asians being too -- What?

I read an interesting piece recently on speech codes and double standards at our universities" Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silvergate, "Codes of Silence: at Reason-online.

I read something I can't find at this time on discrimination against Asians at American universities.

Maybe this will be a good substitute:

Dag said...

About my headline:

In 1925 Mussolini declared himself "Il Duce." Similar to the Doge, and so on.

Kim 2 is ill, as I've read in the news.

And Juche, (rhymes with duce,) is the NoKo term for autocracy, or "self sufficiency."

Hence: Ill Djuche.

That's what passes in my mind as a sense of humor.

Roger Helbig said...

Here is a link I got off a private list - it is collection of publicly available satellite views of North Korea -

"Amateurs Use Google Earth To Uncover Kim's Sinister Secrets"


Dag said...

I know better than to type after my bed time, but I do so anyway, leading me to write, for example, autocracy when I obviously mean autarky.

I am very forgiving of other people's mistakes, if only because of this.

truepeers said...

Heh, mistakes make the man, unlike the mask.