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

Now that's the sort of information and reasoning I was looking for!
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off pointing towards the previous resolutions (which negates the need for the USSR to be involved, even if they hadn't withdrawn their representatives in protest to US and other western nations getting involved in China), but, like in the 1950's, it's the US in overall command.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.

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.

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.

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...

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/milita...y/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).
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.

Found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...d#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.

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.

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

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.

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