Korea - UN or...?

[Legbreaker]

The books only include US and Soviet units as being in Korea and no mention of the North or South Korean forces.
Additionally, a quick study of the unit histories of those involved seems to indicate the conflict followed a similar pattern as occurred in 1950-1953. The US only had one Division in the region at the beginning of hostilities with several more arriving over the next six months (give or take) and the Soviets took the place of the Chinese 45 years before, coming into the picture in late 1997.

Given what is therefore likely to be North Korean aggression kicking things off (again), the technical continuation of the 1950's war which involved the UN on the side of the South, and the involvement of Australian and New Zealand troops (neither of which are members of NATO), as well as the originally intended involvement of Canada, I'm interested in hearing peoples opinion on who's backing the South this time.

Is it the UN (I tend to think so) or has the US gone to bat for the South off their own backs and called upon their allies to assist?

Why?

[Raellus]

SEATO, perhaps? I'm not up on my SEATO history but it seems like a logical organizational umbrella for the West to run Korean ops under.

I'm not sure how well the U.N. would be functioning, if it's functioning at all, after the U.S.S.R. and its allies invade China. Maybe it's a U.N. operation in name only.

[Legbreaker]

Korea kicked off on almost the same day as US forces crossed the front in support of Germany. The UN was absolutely still functioning at that point - the first nukes were still seven months away and the UN HQ itself wasn't hit until approximately 11 months after hostilities in Korea resumed.

[James Langham]

SEATO, perhaps? I'm not up on my SEATO history but it seems like a logical organizational umbrella for the West to run Korean ops under.

I'm not sure how well the U.N. would be functioning, if it's functioning at all, after the U.S.S.R. and its allies invade China. Maybe it's a U.N. operation in name only.

I would guess that the UN ceases to effectively function with the Sino-Soviet War as vetos in the Security Council will stop any action against any party.

The only way may be for the US to use old resolutions to justify involvement.

We know from canon about Australian involvement, maybe we could add the Canadian contingent from Sri Lanka (I'm not sure what date the vehicle from the NATO Vehicle Handbook has them there but the could transfer).

From the British Army there is the possibility of a small force of Gurkhas, probably by creating a new battalion.

Maybe an interesting game could be centred around a Japanese medical unit (they are unlikely to send combat troops due to their constitution). These would be disliked by the Koreans due to their history in Korea.

Thailand might be willing to provide a battalion or two.

Considering how quickly the war in Korea turns nasty with chemical and nuclear weapons, most countries will not want to become involved.

[Legbreaker]

...maybe we could add the Canadian contingent from Sri Lanka (I'm not sure what date the vehicle from the NATO Vehicle Handbook has them there but the could transfer).
The plate is from 1996. The notes state: "Canadian forces were sent to Ceylon in 1993 following the Tamil Insurrection of 1991 as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force. Four companies of Canadian armoured infantry joined troops from Greece, Finland, Australia, Sweden, and Italy on that island in enforcing the shaky truce decreed by a United Nations resolution of February 1993."
It's my guess the Canadians, as well as the Greeks and Italians, would have withdrawn their forces rather quickly once hostilities broke out between them. Likewise, I can't see Finland leaving troops there in the face of a possible Soviet attack through their country. That leaves just Sweden and Australia carrying the load. Any bets on what they'll be doing when the others pull out...?

From the British Army there is the possibility of a small force of Gurkhas, probably by creating a new battalion.
Possible, but more likely they'd have been sent to China to support/reinforce British units listed in that country.

Considering how quickly the war in Korea turns nasty with chemical and nuclear weapons, most countries will not want to become involved.
It was no quicker than anywhere else on the planet. My guess is Nukes would have been withheld for as long as possible actually, given that the USSR didn't go into Korea until late 1997, after China was glowing in the dark and after the Nato offensive of 1996-97 was turned back (aided by tactical nukes).
I'm not sure if Korea had nukes in 1997, but if they did, I'm certain the Soviets would have done everything they could to dissuade their use before the Soviets were ready. With war raging right across the planet, any escalation of that sort is a very bad thing.

It's interesting to note the invasion of Alaska occurred shortly after nukes were first used. It would seem the Soviets were banking on their nukes to do nasty things to the US ability to respond effectively - it would seem likely the Soviets had been planning both the invasion and use of nukes for some time.

[James Langham]

The plate is from 1996. The notes state:
It's my guess the Canadians, as well as the Greeks and Italians, would have withdrawn their forces rather quickly once hostilities broke out between them. Likewise, I can't see Finland leaving troops there in the face of a possible Soviet attack through their country. That leaves just Sweden and Australia carrying the load. Any bets on what they'll be doing when the others pull out...?

Assuming they can get transport...

Possible, but more likely they'd have been sent to China to support/reinforce British units listed in that country.

Probably but it might be an option for political reasons.

It was no quicker than anywhere else on the planet. My guess is Nukes would have been withheld for as long as possible actually, given that the USSR didn't go into Korea until late 1997, after China was glowing in the dark and after the Nato offensive of 1996-97 was turned back (aided by tactical nukes).
I'm not sure if Korea had nukes in 1997, but if they did, I'm certain the Soviets would have done everything they could to dissuade their use before the Soviets were ready. With war raging right across the planet, any escalation of that sort is a very bad thing.

Chemical is likely from the outset though.

It's interesting to note the invasion of Alaska occurred shortly after nukes were first used. It would seem the Soviets were banking on their nukes to do nasty things to the US ability to respond effectively - it would seem likely the Soviets had been planning both the invasion and use of nukes for some time.

If there weren't plans there is something wrong, a sensible military plans for EVERYTHING but thanks, I hadn't noticed that connection before.

[Legbreaker]

Assuming they can get transport...

I've a feeling Greece and Italy would bring their people home very quickly after withdrawing from Nato. With war raging in China for a year or so already, as well as conflict ramping up in Europe, not to mention tensions between Turkey and Greece increasing, especially over Cyprus...

Without those two countries, the remainder wouldn't have much hope of carrying out their mission. The Canadian troops would also be needed to meet their obligations as part of Nato and for at home. Four companies of mechanised infantry might not seem a lot to the US, but to a small military they're a fairly sizable chunk of firepower. Add in the support units which are sure to be there with them, and it could well be upwards of a full battalion. Those numbers are well worth sending a ship (or ships) and pulling out.

Australia would be able to withdraw their troops using their own naval assets (as would the Greeks and Italians I would hope). Finland and Sweden would I'm guessing be the "junior partners" and probably only have a medical team or platoon or so of MPs deployed. In all likelihood they could fly home on a chartered jumbo (if they didn't have their own transport).

Ceylon/Sri Lanka would be left to it's own devices, probably heading straight back into civil war again.

[Legbreaker]

SEATO, perhaps? I'm not up on my SEATO history but it seems like a logical organizational umbrella for the West to run Korean ops under.
From Wiki
Pakistan withdrew in 1972 after the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, in which East Pakistan successfully seceded with the aid of India. France withdrew financial support in 1975. After a final exercise on 20 February 1976, the organization was formally dissolved on 30 June 1977
That would seem to rule that organisation out then...

ANZUS is a possibility to draw Australia in, but not New Zealand (US and NZ were no longer allies as of 1989).
ASEAN is another major organisation, however they're economic in nature and include communist countries who might be a little difficult to convince anyway.

[Raellus]

Korea kicked off on almost the same day as US forces crossed the front in support of Germany. The UN was absolutely still functioning at that point - the first nukes were still seven months away and the UN HQ itself wasn't hit until approximately 11 months after hostilities in Korea resumed.

Yes, but assuming that the USSR and WTO either withdraw from or are booted out of the UN, its pretty much a rump organization. Might the UN sanction W. Germany and the U.S. for their invasion of E. Germany and Poland? The UN's never existed during a world war so is it really going to continue to exist in anythign more than name during WWIII? Just because UN HQ isn't a crater yet doesn't mean a whole lot.

The UN could say it's running the show in Korea, but how much financial, organizational, and military resources and control would it have at its disposal?

SEATO's out (thanks for the lesson) but wasn't there some other SOUTHPAC-typle alliance in place between Western-aligned Asia-Pacific nations? I still think there's a better option than the UN to be running innitial KWII ops.

[Rainbow Six]

I'm inclined to think that in the outset at least Korea would "officially" be run under UN auspices on the basis that (as far as I know) the first Korean War ended in a ceasefire, not an armistice. So the North Korean invasion in 1996 is a resumption of the hostilities suspended in 1953, not a new conflict per se, and as such would be covered under the original UN resolution.

However, given that the main participants on the Allied side are likely to be the US and the ROK my thinking is that it would be de jure a UN operation but de facto a US operation (isn't the CIC Combined Forces always a US Four Star anyway?) And once the UN falls apart whose authority the troops are fighting under probably becomes a moot point. (On a related note, I am convinced that there is a reference in one of the modules to the "UN General Assembly falling apart" at some point in time (or words to that effect) but am unsure where - Armies of the Night maybe?)

With regards other nations' participation, I like Jame's suggestion about a Japanese contingent. I think the UK's resources would be stretched almost to breaking without also committing to Korea though, other than possily the units in Canada as I suggested in my recent piece on the Anglo German Brigade. Thailand makes sense - out of curiosity anyone know if there's any references to Thai troops serving in Korea in the V2 Bangkok Sourcebook? A Phillipines contingent maybe? Singapore?

[Rainbow Six]

The UN could say it's running the show in Korea, but how much financial, organizational, and military resources and control would it have at its disposal?

Yeah, I think that's the point I was trying to make in my earlier post...legally the UN says it is running the show, but in practice it's the US calling the shots (literally as well as metaphorically).

I should have probably voted "other"...!

[Raellus]

Yeah, I think that's the point I was trying to make in my earlier post...legally the UN says it is running the show, but in practice it's the US calling the shots (literally as well as metaphorically).

I should have probably voted "other"...!

Sorry Rainbow- I should have just +1'ed your first post.:o I think you nailed it on the head yet again with your distinction between de jure jurisdiction (nominally the UN) and de facto jurisdiction (likely a U.S.-led coalition of some sort).

[Rainbow Six]

Sorry Rainbow- I should have just +1'ed your first post.:o I think you nailed it on the head yet again with your distinction between de jure jurisdiction (nominally the UN) and de facto jurisdiction (likely a U.S.-led coalition of some sort).

No worries mate...the point I was really trying to get to in my second post (which I didn't make clear) was that you summed it up much more concisely (and probably more clearly!) than I did!

[Webstral]

It's interesting to conjecture what kind of contribution New Zealand might have made to Korea once the fighting kicked off. The political attitudes of the Kiwis would be critical and hard to predict from where I'm sitting. New Zealand effectively cancelled the US-NZ connection in ANZUS over nuclear issues. In the context of an ongoing Cold War, would the Kiwis continue to keep the US at arm's length over the nuclear issue, or would the ongoing hazard presented by a revived Soviet Union have served to mend fences? I really don't know.

Several important factors exist. In no particular order of precedence:

The Soviet Union still exists, and they had to kill an awful lot of people in Eastern Europe to reverse the Velvet Revolution.

The Soviet Union invaded China, plain and simple. Lots of death, lots of destruction

The West Germans are responsible for the spread of the war to Europe. It's hard to believe that the US wasn't in on it at some level--especially when US forces join the fight in East Germany.

The DPRK invades the ROK. Whatever is happening in Germany, a country not directly involved in the fighting to that point invades another country not directly involved in the fighting to that point. Both nations are clients of the warring superpowers, but they are still each a sovereign nation.

The US is the de facto (nice one!) leader of the Allied effort to assist the ROK.


So, does New Zealand lean more towards justifiable reluctance to get involved in an expanded war started by the FRG with the collusion of the USA, or does New Zealand lean more towards supporting the ROK in spite of being on the outs with the US over nuke boats and the war in Europe? I don't have any way of taking the pulse of New Zealanders in real life or conjecturing how they might feel in a v1 chronology. I'd like to think that they'd choose to support the ROK, even if this meant coming under the hand of US command structure in Korea. It's hard to say, though.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, but assuming that the USSR and WTO either withdraw from or are booted out of the UN, its pretty much a rump organization.
The USSR was boycotting the UN from January 1950 (months before Korea flared) over the refusal of each of it's component states to be granted a separate seat. Therefore, the lack of the USSR in the UN during T2K is a bit of a moot point due to the above precedent.

Might the UN sanction W. Germany and the U.S. for their invasion of E. Germany and Poland?
The issue may well have been raised, but both the US and Britain possess the power of Veto. There's no way such a resolution could have been passed.
The UN could say it's running the show in Korea, but how much financial, organizational, and military resources and control would it have at its disposal?
Same as always really.

...wasn't there some other SOUTHPAC-typle alliance in place between Western-aligned Asia-Pacific nations?
Not as far as I'm aware. There's a handful of economic organisations, but next to nothing as far as military alliances able to take charge in Korea. A South Pacific organisation wouldn't have much cause to intervene in the northern hemisphere anyway.
...legally the UN says it is running the show, but in practice it's the US calling the shots (literally as well as metaphorically).
That's no different to 1950. The initial Resolution was a massive political win for the US, General MacArthur was placed in command (until he was sacked by Truman) and the bulk of troops involved were from the US.
However a total of 14 nations contributed forces with some countries (such as Australia) contributing a much greater percentage of their military strength than the US.

As mentioned, the Korean War of the 50's hasn't actually ended. The initial UN Resolutions still hold.

Can anyone who served in Korea shed some light on the reasons why they were stationed there? Paul? I'm guessing it had something to do with UN responsibilities.
It's interesting to conjecture what kind of contribution New Zealand might have made to Korea once the fighting kicked off.
My guess is they would be looking at the UN and acting under it's authority. As you mentioned, the lack of a military alliance between them and the US, or with South Korea will effectively preclude their involvement otherwise.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

... out of curiosity anyone know if there's any references to Thai troops serving in Korea in the V2 Bangkok Sourcebook? A Phillipines contingent maybe? Singapore?

The Bangkok sourcebook deals almost exclusively with the internal goings on of Thailand as it was designed as an adventure campaign book. It doesn't make mention of anything much outside the country.

[Raellus]

My guess is they would be looking at the UN and acting under it's authority. As you mentioned, the lack of a military alliance between them and the US, or with South Korea will effectively preclude their involvement otherwise.

What's the point of a poll when you clearly had your mind made up from the get-go? I suppose the question you asked via the poll was purely rehetorical. Classic.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

What's the point of a poll when you clearly had your mind made up from the get-go? I suppose the question you asked via the poll was purely rehetorical. Classic.

That's a bit harsh. Isn't one of the concepts of a forum to float ideas around even if you do adhere to one point of view so you can be exposed to what others think? That way you might find more information about a subject and you might be inclined to change your mind rather than stick to an outmoded idea.

[Raellus]

Isn't one of the concepts of a forum to float ideas around even if you do adhere to one point of view so you can be exposed to what others think? That way you might find more information about a subject and you might be inclined to change your mind rather than stick to an outmoded idea.

Yes.

[Legbreaker]

What's the point of a poll when you clearly had your mind made up from the get-go? I suppose the question you asked via the poll was purely rehetorical. Classic.

I find that statement rather offensive and unbecoming of a moderator. I would think most of us would expect better.

Yes, my mind is made up, but that doesn't mean every one elses is. The intent of the poll is, as I originally posted, to see what people think, and discuss why.

[Raellus]

I find that statement rather offensive and unbecoming of a moderator. I would think most of us would expect better.

I find quite a bit of what you post here offensive and unbecoming of a forum member. I think nearly all of us expect better. Why play the mod card now? You ignore nearly everything else I post when I put on the moderator hat. Looks like you're calling plays from the other team's play book now.

Yes, my mind is made up, but that doesn't mean every one elses is. The intent of the poll is, as I originally posted, to see what people think, and discuss why.

"Discuss" meaning argue. To me this smacks of classic trolling. I'll leave you to it, then. If no one complains, I suppose it's fair game.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

"Discuss" meaning argue. To me this smacks of classic trolling. I'll leave you to it, then. If no one complains, I suppose it's fair game.

Trolling? Jesus Christ talk about jump the gun!
I never saw such action from any of the mods except Targan when Olefin was "trolling". Why the hate now?
Or is it just that some of you hate Legbreaker?
Yeah he's assertive to the point of being aggressive and people might have been offended by the way he presents his point of view and sometimes he should pull his head in but this smacks of nothing more than double standards.

Legbreaker isn't the one who'll force me away from this forum, it's the bullshit attitude of some of the mods that'll do that.

[Rainbow Six]

SEATO's out but wasn't there some other SOUTHPAC-typle alliance in place between Western-aligned Asia-Pacific nations? I still think there's a better option than the UN to be running innitial KWII ops.

The Five Power Defence Arrangement was formed in 1971 and still exists, but South Korea is outside its area. It's a series of treaties between the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Malaysia and is meant to protect Malaysia and Singapore from foreign aggression.

As best as I can tell, there is absolutely no way an attack on South Korea would even come close to pulling in any of the Five Powers members unless they wanted to get involved, but it might be an option if some nations chose to deploy forces to Korea outwith the UN - gesture of regional solidarity, that sort of thing. Heck, maybe when its invaded South Korea gets offered membership of the Five Powers in the same way that Yugoslavia and Romania are admitted to NATO.

[Targan]

ANZUS is a possibility to draw Australia in, but not New Zealand (US and NZ were no longer allies as of 1989).
ASEAN is another major organisation, however they're economic in nature and include communist countries who might be a little difficult to convince anyway.

Ah, but New Zealand fully rejoining ANZUS was only ever an election away. The current (conservative) New Zealand Prime Minister John Key was quick to repair relations with the US shortly after forming government. It is entirely possible that in the slightly different alternate Earth of T2K, New Zealand returned to a conservative government much sooner than in RL due to the Cold War never ending. And that would bring New Zealand fully back into the ANZUS Treaty well in time for the Twilight War.

[Targan]

SEATO's out (thanks for the lesson) but wasn't there some other SOUTHPAC-type alliance in place between Western-aligned Asia-Pacific nations? I still think there's a better option than the UN to be running initial KWII ops.

ASEAN? It's not a military alliance though, more of an economic, political and diplomatic grouping. And it is specifically focused towards peaceful resolution of disagreements through diplomatic means.

[Targan]

So, does New Zealand lean more towards justifiable reluctance to get involved in an expanded war started by the FRG with the collusion of the USA, or does New Zealand lean more towards supporting the ROK in spite of being on the outs with the US over nuke boats and the war in Europe? I don't have any way of taking the pulse of New Zealanders in real life or conjecturing how they might feel in a v1 chronology. I'd like to think that they'd choose to support the ROK, even if this meant coming under the hand of US command structure in Korea. It's hard to say, though.

Once again you're one step ahead of me, Web :D. I should've read down to your post before writing my New Zealand comments above.

[Webstral]

Good grief, can we give it rest already! Those of you who don't like each other are just going to have to find a way to cohabitate or occupy separate parts of the playground.

It doesn't bother me in the least that Leg comes to the poll with a firm concept that he wants to test against other interpretations. That's his modus operendi. After all this time, it shouldn't be a surprise that Legbreaker likes a particular type of interaction. For those of us who choose to interact with him in a thread, we ought to expect that he comes to the discussion with a clear picture of what he believes and that it is up to the rest of us to present good reasons for him to change his mind. This way of doing business is neither right nor wrong, good nor bad--it's just idiosyncratic. It takes all kinds to make a rifle platoon.

[Webstral]

Once again you're one step ahead of me, Web :D. I should've read down to your post before writing my New Zealand comments above.

I always posting first, reading what everyone had to say second. This time, the planet's rotation worked in my favor.

[Webstral]

My guess is they would be looking at the UN and acting under it's authority. As you mentioned, the lack of a military alliance between them and the US, or with South Korea will effectively preclude their involvement otherwise.

If this is the case, the UN is really just a flag of convenience. The UN passes a resolution and writes a nice document announcing that the fighting in Korea is separate from the fighting in rest of the Far East and Europe. This done, the UN recognizes the US chain of command in the ROK. Countries like New Zealand that may have some issues with fighting under US command are given a legal tonic to soothe the stomachs of the voting populace. A New Zealand brigade goes to the ROK, and everybody is happy. Until the nukes start flying.

[Raellus]

Good grief, can we give it rest already! Those of you who don't like each other are just going to have to find a way to cohabitate or occupy separate parts of the playground.

It doesn't bother me in the least that Leg comes to the poll with a firm concept that he wants to test against other interpretations. That's his modus operendi. After all this time, it shouldn't be a surprise that Legbreaker likes a particular type of interaction. For those of us who choose to interact with him in a thread, we ought to expect that he comes to the discussion with a clear picture of what he believes and that it is up to the rest of us to present good reasons for him to change his mind. This way of doing business is neither right nor wrong, good nor bad--it's just idiosyncratic. It takes all kinds to make a rifle platoon.

You're right. I should know better. I will stand down. I am sorry for uglying up your thread, Leg.

[Legbreaker]

Meh, no problem. Words on a page/screen don't convey emotions and subtleties very well and so it's easy for any of us to get upset over nothing or misunderstand something.

I've noticed four votes so far for a solely US organised, led and controlled Korean front but haven't seen any reasons given why those beliefs are held. Are there valid reasons for that view, or as three of the votes are from Americans and one Canadian, is it simply a matter of national/continental pride?

Remember that the whole purpose of this thread is to discuss and hopefully decide upon under what authority is the action in Korea taking place?

I'm still very interested in hearing from anyone who's actually served in Korea about what they were told were the reasons for US troops being there. What was the "official" explanation. Additionally, roughly what percentage of the DMZ width was the US responsible for in the 80's and 90's? Approximately how much depth was there to the defence? Were their any other nations (besides the Koreans) stationed there? If North Korea attacked, was there any assumptions of other nations joining in without delay?

And just to clarify my own position a little more, I'm not denying the US are the most likely country (besides the Koreans themselves - it's their country after all) to lead any forces in the area. It's under what authority that is the real question.

[Badbru]

Where(sic) their any other nations (besides the Koreans) stationed there?

I recall watching a movie on SBS about two border posts on either side of a river. One guy from the south gets curious, too curious, and goes over.
He befriends the northerners and they visit regularly. One day something goes horribly wrong and a shootout occurs. This bit is all told in flashbacks as the bulk of the movie but the rest of it is the present in which a Korean/Swiss
mixed perentage female soldier, from the Swiss Army, is investigating the incident. I'm pretty sure it was Swiss as there was a scene featuring a swiss army knife. Are the Swiss part of Nato? Would they be in South Korea as some part of a UN mandate? Was it just made up for the movie? I don't know but Swiss could be there.

Regarding our mates across the ditch, the Kiwis. They still follow us around where-ever and allmost when-ever we deploy troops overseas. New Zealand deployed troops to East Timor, and they still have some in the Solomons with our peacekeeping/mentoring group there. They may have disallowed nuclear powered ships from the USA into their ports but I don't know if they ever fully withdrew from ANZUS. Based on their commitments to overseas deployments I suspect that given a T2K timeline they would have lived up to their part of the bargain.

[Legbreaker]

Are the Swiss part of Nato?
I should think not given they're about the most neutral country on the planet!
Not even sure they'd do much to support a UN resolution/action. :confused:
They may have disallowed nuclear powered ships from the USA into their ports but I don't know if they ever fully withdrew from ANZUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzus#United_States_suspends_obligations_to_New_Ze aland
According to Wiki, the US acted first to chose to let the treaty lapse in June 1987, a year after the US suspended their own obligation to assist NZ militarily.
Only in 2006, with the US linking free trade between NZ and the US with nuclear powered and/or armed ships being allowed back into NZ ports has there been even a mention of renewing the alliance. IRL this finally occurred in 2010, 25 years after the initial split, however it was later revealed some military co-operation had resumed in 2007.

So, unless there was a radical change of the political situation in New Zealand which caused them to want to renew the alliance, it doesn't seem likely in T2K - it was after all the US who apparently pushed the issue leaving NZ to either agree, or potentially suffer economically.

[Rainbow Six]

Switzerland isn't in NATO.

In the T2K timeline Switzerland wouldn't even have been a member of the United Nations as IRL it didn't join until 2002 (prior to that it had Observer status). It's also not a member of the European Union.

[Rainbow Six]

Not even sure they'd do much to support a UN resolution/action. :confused:

They wouldn't even have been members of the UN at the time, so that would be a definite no...

[Legbreaker]

Well that answers that question then. Movie must have been set after 2002, or the producers took a bit of creative licence with it.

[Badbru]

Movies Huh. Oh well, I still enjoyed the movie.
I didn't think that Switzerland was in Nato but I'm surprised to hear they're johnny come lately's to the UN.

[simonmark6]

I went for US backed and run not because of any partisan reasons but because the UN officially left the defence of South Korea to the US and South Koreans in 1978. This was backed by the US/South Korean mandate of a mutual defence treaty between the two countries that reaches back to 1953.

I can't see the UN being able to get any mandate to go back into South Korea when the war goes hot. The Soviets are obviously not going to back such a resolution and their veto would hamstring the UN even if it wanted to get involved.

In my opinion the war in South Korea is a US run show although there are points where operational control is handed over to Chinese commanders. Any other nations that get involved in the theatre do so either as a result of pressure from the Americans or because they see their interests lying in supporting the Americans.

Whatever happened in the theatre, the US called the shots and probably provided most of the finances even if South Koreans and Chinese paid most of the butcher's bill, though looking at the casualty rate of American Divisions in theatre I don't think we could accuse them of holding back.

[pmulcahy11b]

The UN is a sham, ineffective with virtually all its supposed activities, and various alliances stop only anything from getting done. (Hmmm, sounds like the US government right now...)

UN activities that are supposedly military have such restrictive rules of engagement I'm surprised they don't have to call higher headquarters to swab out their rifle barrels. UN forces, wherever being used, are almost totally worthless -- not because of the troops, but because of the restrictions placed on them by the UN.

With UN relief actions are being done, much of the relief supplies somehow appear in the hands of local warlords, who sell them at an exorbitant price. The UN said the supplies would be free, but that's true only if they somehow get their supplies directly from the UN (then they are free). If you'd mix in UN troops to the crew with much less restrictive ROEs, they could stop suspicious individuals. They could establish a cordon around the relief workers and their supplies, letting people in after a check. They could have pictures of known hoodlums. (For that matter, all UN troops should have much less restrictive ROEs). They might have the firepower to suppress warlords and dissuade their showing up at a food delivery.

Oh, and for the poll I chose UN backed and run, because the correct answer is not up there. At the beginning of the war, the UN tried to keep things really limited, but the countries in the intervention (largely the US) cried Bullshit! Soon, the US was in operational control of the operation, and the UN got out of our way. So the correct answer would be "UN backed and US run.)

[Rainbow Six]

There's a book called "Shake Hands With The Devil" by General Romeo Daillaire, the Canadian General who was in charge of UN forces in Rwanada during the genocide which gives some excellent insights into the challenges faced by UN peacekeepers. It's well worth a read. Amogst his observations were the fact that one of the national contingents under his command (iirc the Bangladeshis) did not want to fight anyone and were quite happy to more or less barricade themselves into their barracks and not come out - they were only there because their Government was paid a per diem from the UN for every soldier they sent, and in many cases the troops arrived without basic items of equipment, which their Government then expected the UN to provide them with.

[Targan]

Oh, and for the poll I chose UN backed and run, because the correct answer is not up there. At the beginning of the war, the UN tried to keep things really limited, but the countries in the intervention (largely the US) cried Bullshit! Soon, the US was in operational control of the operation, and the UN got out of our way. So the correct answer would be "UN backed and US run.)

If "UN backed and US run" was an option in the poll that's what I'd vote for too.

[Legbreaker]

...because the UN officially left the defence of South Korea to the US and South Koreans in 1978. This was backed by the US/South Korean mandate of a mutual defence treaty between the two countries that reaches back to 1953.

Now that's the sort of information and reasoning I was looking for!
Oh, and for the poll I chose UN backed and run, because the correct answer is not up there. At the beginning of the war, the UN tried to keep things really limited, but the countries in the intervention (largely the US) cried Bullshit! Soon, the US was in operational control of the operation, and the UN got out of our way. So the correct answer would be "UN backed and US run.)

That would be option three, "other". ;)

I'm really of the same opinion. UN starts things off pointing towards the previous resolutions (which negates the need for the USSR to be involved, even if they hadn't withdrawn their representatives in protest to US and other western nations getting involved in China), but, like in the 1950's, it's the US in overall command. By late 1997 it really doesn't matter what flag it's all under as the UN is toast, just like virtually all civilian governments world wide.

The question of UN or US really comes down to working out how other countries come to be involved. As previously pointed out, there's no effective alliance between NZ and the US, or NZ and South Korea to draw them into the fray (NZ isn't in the canon anyway so it's a bit of a moot point). I like the idea of Thailand sending troops, as well as Australians. Other nationalities could be a bit hard to justify though (Japan with a small medical unit maybe, Singapore with some MPs, or perhaps a few of the Pacific island countries sending a company or so?). If it's the UN which kick things off (for the defence of South Korea) it's fairly straight forward, but if it's either South Korea or the US making the call for aid, it's a bit more problematic given the tensions elsewhere in the world at the time.

[Targan]

The question of UN or US really comes down to working out how other countries come to be involved. As previously pointed out, there's no effective alliance between NZ and the US, or NZ and South Korea to draw them into the fray (NZ isn't in the canon anyway so it's a bit of a moot point).

Just because NZ isn't mentioned in canon doesn't mean they weren't there. And as I said in an earlier post in this thread, NZ returning fully to the ANZUS Alliance was only ever an election away. I think it's entirely possible that in a world where the Cold War didn't end, NZ might well have had a much more conservative Govt during the early to mid 1990s and returned to the ANZUS fold.

[Rainbow Six]

I'm really of the same opinion. UN starts things off pointing towards the previous resolutions (which negates the need for the USSR to be involved, even if they hadn't withdrawn their representatives in protest to US and other western nations getting involved in China), but, like in the 1950's, it's the US in overall command. By late 1997 it really doesn't matter what flag it's all under as the UN is toast, just like virtually all civilian governments world wide.

OK, I pretty much agree with all of that.

I think Targan makes a good point though, inasmuch as while in the real World New Zealand didn't rejoin the ANZUS alliance until a few years ago, in the T2K World it may have happened sooner.

To my mind, it's something that's not covered anywhere in canon (as far as I know) so you have a completely free hand to do as you wish with regards to a New Zealand contingent (or any other nationality). There are valid arguments both for and against NZ participation, so it's a matter of what you think feels right.

[Legbreaker]

I agree and I fully intend to have NZ troops in Korea as part of the Australian Brigade. Probably the Scorpions they retired a few years back and maybe some 105mm artillery.
The infantry is more likely to see service in New Guinea (also alongside Australians) and perhaps assist (if not needed at home) in Northern Australia.

[Rainbow Six]

I agree and I fully intend to have NZ troops in Korea as part of the Australian Brigade. Probably the Scorpions they retired a few years back and maybe some 105mm artillery.
The infantry is more likely to see service in New Guinea (also alongside Australians) and perhaps assist (if not needed at home) in Northern Australia.

Sounds good to me...

[Legbreaker]

My impression is the general consensus is intervention in Korea was authorised by the UN (perhaps referencing the original Resolutions back in 1950), but the US was, as before, placed in overall command of foreign forces. Not sure how well the Koreans themselves would like that though.

Further research into the matter reveals that if war was to break out as it did in T2K, it would indeed have been still a UN operation, however the US would hold overall command of all forces with a South Korean holding second in command.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/usfk.htm
Although there were changes in 1978 (establishing ROK/US Combined Forces Command or CFC), the authority still rests to this very day with the UN.

According to the 1954 treaty, the US must go to Korea's aid if they are attacked. Likewise, the South Koreans must aid the US (which is one of the major reasons Koreans served in Vietnam).
US legal obligations are those under U.N. Security Council Resolutions of 1950, by which the US leads the United Nations Command, and the ROK/US Mutual Security Agreement of 1954, which commits both nations to assist each other in case of attack from outside forces.

Therefore, it's fairly definitive that unless there's been some radical political changes in the T2K timeline, the Korean Theatre is indeed a United Nations engagement and so it's much easier for us to place New Zealanders, Australians, Thais, even South Africans, French or what-have-you in the area. The US may have been in command on day one, but with a South Korean as 2IC who knows what the situation is by 2000.

[Canadian Army]

Found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command#Legal_status

it explains the legal status of the UN in the Korean War. It also has a list of all combatants and a list of non-combatants.

[dragoon500ly]

What you are looking for is UN Security Council Resolution 84, dated 7 July, 1950. This determine that the invasion of South Korea by North Korea constituted a breach of the peace and called for its members to contribute troops and equipment to support South Korea and authorized the United States to command this commitment in the name of the United Nations. Of interest is this resolution has never been repealed.

The Republic of Korea-United Stares Alliance was formalized 1October, 1953 by the signing of a mutual defense treaty that committed both countries to provide mutual aid if either faces external armed attack. It also allowed the US to station military forces in the ROK in consultation with the ROK government. This treaty has been amended several times, but remains the legal basis of the alliance.

[Olefin]

The first edition mentions North Korean troops in the US Army Guide

7th Infantry Division - engaged against mechanized elements of the North Korean Army - and then after the collapse of the Chinese front the division was surrounded by Soviet and North Korean forces and nearly annihilated

45th Infantry Division - division bore the brunt of numerous Soviet and North Korean counterattacks

4th Marine Division - entered combat against the North Korean Army

5th Marine Division - also talks about combat against the North Korean Army

Thus 1st edition - North Korean army units for sure

2nd edition says that North Korea and South Korea had been unified and that the US was in combat with Soviet units only

to quote "Korea: The newly reunified Republic of Korea came to the assistance of the Chinese early in the war and was subjected to limited
nuclear attacks by the Soviets. Although the capital at Seoul was destroyed and several ports were severely damaged (they are now devastated), most of the rest of the country is organized under martial law, and is an island
of stability in a sea of disorganization. Resuming its reputation as the "Hermit Kingdom,"Korea is now extremely xenophobic and distrustful
of strangers."

thus if you are looking at the 2nd edition there would be no North Korean units - however the American Combat Vehicle Handbook states the followign for the 45th Infantry

"Upon disintegration of the northern Chinese armies, the division bore
the brunt of numerous Soviet and North Korean counterattacks and became separated from the main body of VI Corps"

The 4th Marines also mentions North Koreans

Thus the question - is the V2.2. version incorrect that Korea is unified or is the American Vehicle Guide incorrect with North Koreans mentioned?

One of the two is wrong - unless somehow you either have renegade North Korean units that were formed in the Soviet Union prior to the war or had units of the unified Korean Army turn renegade and join the Soviets

[Raellus]

Thus the question - is the V2.2. version incorrect that Korea is unified or is the American Vehicle Guide incorrect with North Koreans mentioned?

One of the two is wrong - unless somehow you either have renegade North Korean units that were formed in the Soviet Union prior to the war or had units of the unified Korean Army turn renegade and join the Soviets

The two versions are mutually exclusive. They don't align. So, it all depends on which version you use. IMHO, the v2 history is garbage. v1.0 is superior because it actually works as an alternate history (i.e. the Cold War didn't actually end in 1991). v2 is tries to reconcile the IRL 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union with a restored, Russian superpower, all in the span of 4-5 years. Um, nope. It's just silly.

That said, I prefer the greater simplicity/ease of use of the v2.2 ruleset.

Any materials that I create are designed to be compatible w/ the v1.0 history. I completely ignore the v2.2 history.

[Olefin]

I feel the same way about the V2.2 history - the timeline I am using is the V1.0 with some modifications for real history added in where it doesn't conflict

Thus while you have the Rwandan genocide in the Kenyan Sourcebook you also have the RDF history from V1 intact

Marc stated that the Sourcebook is V2 but in reality its a version V1 timeline that can be played with the V2.2 rules