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]

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.

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_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]

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]

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.