Korea - UN or...?

[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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by Badbru

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.

Originally Posted by Badbru

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#U...to_New_Zealand
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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Canadian Army]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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