Korea - UN or...?

[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]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

...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!

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/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).

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.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.