RE: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a civilization?

[Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM]

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Thursday, August 16, 2001 6:58 AM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
> civilization?

> You suggested that the North Korean army was just defensive.  Their
> special forces unit is designed to penetrate behind the enemy lines and
> attack from the rear.  Why in the world would this be a good idea in a
> defensive war?

There's a saying "all is fair in love and war". Even when you're on the
defending side in a war, it makes sense to get your forces behind enemy
lines and fight from there (either by actively engaging in combat, or by
sabotaging enemy installations, communication systems etcetera).

IIRC, the US claim that they will not be the first to strike; IOW, any war
they fight will be a defensive one. Yet, the US too has special forces that
can penetrate behind enemy lines and attack from the rear. Why would it be
OK for the US to have such forces, but not OK for North Korea to have
similar forces?


> > >When they remove all the land mines from their side of the border,
> > >and move their troops towards the border.
> >
> > Well, it's their own country, they can remove landmines and move
> > troops all they want. You know, rights of sovereign nations and all 
> > that.
> 
> Yes, but you were looking for indications.  Why would they remove the
> land mines as a defensive move?   Why would the move them as an 
> offensive move?

Perhaps they removed them because they don't want their troops get killed by
their own mines while on routine exercises. Can you be sure that is *not*
the reason for removing the mines?


> > >When their troops go within the forbidden zone near the border?
> >
> > Provocation, I'd guess. See how far they can go before the people on
> > the other side of the border start shooting. In the case of North 
> > Korea, probably an attempt to get the US troops to open fire first,
> > which would give South Korea a wonderful opportunity to show the 
> > world just how agressive the US really is.
> 
> The other logical conclusion is to lower the sensitivity of the US to
> incursions.

Possible, but not proven.


> All that has to happen, once the plans are made, is for the big dude to
> say "go."  As I've pointed out, with the maneuvers, tanks are moving
> towards the border regularly.

That still isn't prove of hostile intent. If I were running a US-unfriendly
country and notice US troops on the other side of the border, I would let my
troops go on regular maneuvers near the border too, even if I had no intend
whatsoever of invading that other country.

North Korea might just as well be doing all their maneuvering to show the US
and South Korea that they will be ready if their own country would be
invaded. Now, I know the US say they wouldn't do that unless North Korea
would cross the border first, but the North Korean government does not
exactly trust the US government.


> > I would be surprised if the US military intelligence community
> > *didn't* have informants in the inner circle of potentially hostile 
> > countries. Actually, I wouldn't even be surprised if learned that the 
> > US has spies in the inner circles of their *allies*.
> 
> Are you seriously arguing that  of the 10 or 20 people closest to the
> leader in North Korea include one American spy?  No hard feelings, but
> I think you've read too many Bond novels. :-)]

Maybe not among the 10 or 20 closest people, but close enough to have access
to information that US military intelligence would consider "of vital
importance".

And I haven't read any Bond novels, BTW.   :-)


Jeroen

_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website:                    http://go.to/brin-l