![]() |
Korea - UN or...?
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? |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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? |
Quote:
I should have probably voted "other"...! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.