Text & Graphic Fwd: S. Korea’s new defense plans stimulates speculation regarding joining MD

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/362901.html

S. Korea’s new defense plans stimulates speculation regarding joining MD:
While S. Korea concentrates on strengthening ground forces against N. Korean nuclear weapons, experts say purchasing SM-3 and PAC-3 missiles would meet a MD precondition
June 29, 2009

While S. Korea concentrates on strengthening ground forces against N. Korean nuclear weapons, experts say purchasing SM-3 and PAC-3 missiles would meet a MD precondition

Criticism is surfacing that S. Korea’s planned defense measures against North Korean nuclear weapons and missiles, as revealed by the Ministry of Defense on Friday in its basic plan for defense reform, could be interpreted by surrounding nations like China as joining the U.S.-led Missile Defense (MD) system.

Lieutenant General Kim Ki Soo of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that due to North Korea’s second nuclear test and missile launch, Seoul will be reevaluating its response strategy to the North Korean nuclear and missile threat to secure the fighting strength it needs. Analysts say he may be referring to the possibility of using the 2 satellites and the Global Hawk high-altitude UAV to detect signs of a North Korean missile launch, and if necessary, attacking North Korean missile bases and intercepting ballistic missiles using JDAMs launched from F-15Ks, interceptor missiles fired from the Aegis-equipped Sejong the Great-class warships , and ground-based Patriot missiles.

A Defense Ministry official said they were considering the introduction of SM-3, SM-6 and sea-based PAC-3 missiles for its Aegis ships and PAC-3 missiles as land-based interceptors.

Analysts are taking that while the Defense Ministry’s basic plan for military reform weighs the adoption of SM-3 and PAC-3 missiles in the name of preparing for the North Korean nuclear threat, it is concentrating on strengthening ground forces with additional tanks and artillery, and is postponing plans to introduce new weaponry for the Navy and Air Force.

Until now, the South Korean military has adopted or made plans to adopt less-capable SM-2 and PAC-2 missiles as part of its “independent air defense.” Experts have pointed out that if South Korea is to join the MD system, it must first purchase the SM-3 and PAC-3 missiles, capable of high-altitude missile interception at ranges of over 160km. The SM-3 and PAC-3, capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, are considered a first step to joining the MD system.

Kim Jong-dae, the editor-in-chief of the defense journal “D&D Focus,” says if South Korea introduces these weapon systems, it moves closer to the MD system regardless of its intention.

It is a matter of debate whether the SM-3 and PAC-3 missiles would be militarily useful in the security environment of the Korean Peninsula. This is because even if South Korea, whose capital is about 50km from the DMZ, were to adopt SM-3 and PAC-3 missiles, they would have limited military effectiveness against North Korean ballistic missiles, and would be of significance only against missiles flying in from long range, such as from China.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company.


* Related article

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/362900.html
[Editorial] For full comprehensive talks to resolve North Korea nuclear issue
June 29, 2009


* Related blogs

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/06/text-fwd-s-korea-to-acquire-new.html
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Text Fwd: S. Korea to acquire new missiles for Aegis destroyer

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/06/map-fwd-korean-defense-reform.html
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Graphic Fwd: Revised Korean Defense Reform 2020

Text & Video Fwd: THE SHOW MUST GO ON

* Bruce Gagnon's blog on June 29, 2009
THE SHOW MUST GO ON



This is a really important video by Bill Moyers from some years ago on the power of the CIA.

Last year I read a book called The Game Player by a former CIA agent Miles Copeland. He was pro-CIA and very enthusiastic about having worked for the oil corporations during the period of 1950-1970ish.

Copeland worked in the Middle East and with great affection told story after story about helping to kill or neutralize those who stood in the way of corporate control of the oil region.

In one section, where he talks extensively about Egypt, he tells the story about how former Nazi operatives were weaved into the CIA Middle East operation:

"The idea of planting on Middle Eastern governments Germans suspected of war crimes had a lot to say for it, because they were generally both anti-American and anti-Soviet, and presumed to be anti-Semitic and therefore anti-Israel. Most of them were also anti-Arab, although they had the wit to conceal that fact. Anyhow, all of them were opportunists, willing to work for anyone who paid them, and they happily passed on to their Middle Eastern employers any advice prescribed for them. Naturally, we had some trouble in getting clearance for projects involving the use of Nazis and ex-Nazis, but our difficulties disappeared when our friends in Israel's Mossad admitted that they, too, were using ex-Nazis for a number of nefarious purposes, and for the same reasons that they were attractive to us."

Copeland eventually leaves the CIA and goes to work directly for oil corporations but continues doing the same covert work. He described how often, when he would enter a particular Middle Eastern country to work on an operation, the US Embassy and the CIA assigned there did not know what he was doing. His orders were coming from a "higher authority". The secret government at work. It's even more so today.

Yesterday we had our monthly pot luck supper here at the Addams-Melman House. It was a pouring buckets-of-rain day, and I spent alot of time talking with one woman peace elder in our state. She voted for Obama and told me "I just don't want to believe" that he has been such a disappointment. The feeling of betrayal is beginning to creep into her soul. What is left to do she wondered? Take the money out of politics and instant run-off voting (IRV), she asked? Yes I told her, those are good but even if we had that the corporate dominated media would make sure their interests would win elections 9-times-out-of-10. In the end we have to take the whole system on I suggested.

Then this morning I got a call from a Global Network member in conservative Indiana. He had seen my new video and wanted to put it on his cable TV show - his lifeline. He talked for some time about how their local peace group, before the elections drawing a couple hundred to events, was now down to six stubborn people. He too had voted for Obama but was glad to see my critical review of Obama's foreign policy on the video.

We all need permission at times to keep at it, especially when the slogging gets tough. As Pink Floyd says, "I've become comfortably numb."

I told my friend, he is a Veteran for Peace member too, that we've got to see the incoming and outgoing ocean tides in our minds. The rush of activism comes and it goes. The job of an organizer is to keep the fires burning during the out-tide so that when the people inevitably return there is a place for them to move into immediate action. In the lull period we have to stay visible in every possible way and to keep putting the pieces of the puzzle up on the wall so people can begin to interpret the whole picture.

The people though, in their hearts, know the true score. But everyone wants to be liked and they have long ago learned to "toe the line" as they taught us in the military. Take away all desire and will to step out when told by the oligarchy to sit down and shut up.

Eventually though people will be forced off the dime and back into action. The contradictions are catching up with the collapsing system and they are a bit hard to ignore these days.

But we have to go global. We seen people in Iran protesting as they become victims of the big power game now underway spelled - OIL. The only way to take down the global corporate power elite is to link our realities to this larger picture.

But at the same time the place to do that work is locally. We've got to help our fellow citizens to move from fear and lethargy into action. It's a lifetime gift.

Text Fwd: Solidarity Statement for the People of Vicenza

Wilbert van der Zeijden sent on June 30, 2009

Dear all,
This is the Solidarity Statement I wrote for the people of Vicenza, who plan to declare independency from foreign (US) military presence this Saturday, the 4th of July.
Size restrictions from the SYMPA list prevent me from sending you the PDF version with layout and logo and all, but that version can be requested via secretariat@no-bases.net of course.
Our Italian friends will make an Italian translation.

In addition to this statement on behalf of the entire Network, similar statements of support and solidarity from your individual campaigns will be much appreciated by the NoDalMolin Movement in Vicenza.

Kind regards,
Wilbert van der Zeijden
Coordinator of the International Secretariat of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases.


To the citizens of Vicenza,

It is with deep respect for your struggle and your cause that we, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, send you this letter of support on the eve of your Declaration of Independence from the US military, on July 4th 2009.

The struggle in Vicenza continues to inspire dozens of similar campaigns across the globe, and thousands of activists and campaigners in the more than 100 countries and territories that “host” a foreign military presence. And as such, your decision to declare independence is taken on behalf of all of us. An independent Vicenza will be an important example for others. We need an independent Diego Garcia, an independent Curaçao, Pjong Taek, Tan-Tan and an independent Waihopei…. to give a few examples.

The US Declaration of Independence is a good starting point for formulating one’s own independence from foreign military occupation or subjugation. In their struggle against British rule, one of the most common grievances among citizens of the United States at the time was that the UK was“quartering large bodies of armed troops among us, even in peace-time”. In 1776 the citizens of the US recognised that the permanent military presence of a foreign power in peace-time undermined their self-determination, and was an infringement on their right to be master of their own faith and their own land. The desire of the people of Vicenza today is no different than the desire expressed 233 years ago in a document that until this day is widely regarded as one of the foundations for modern democratic, independent and sovereign societies.

The story of Vicenza is one that has been repeated over the past centuries in more than a thousand places the world over. And it is sad to say that the society of freedom fighters of 1776 has morphed into one of imposers, and occupiers, today.

It is equally disturbing to see that Vicenza is becoming a modern example of how undemocratic, un-transparent and – frankly – how deceitful modern European democracies can be. Where one would expect the Italian government to embark upon an open, inclusive and civilised debate with its own citizens on the need, necessity and consequences of yet another foreign military base, the Italian state has failed on all accounts. Information was withheld from those citizens who will bear the direct consequences of government decisions. Indeed, information was clearly withheld with the purpose of preventing any meaningful public debate on the matter. What’s more, it has become obvious in the past years of non-violent struggle by the citizens of Vicenza, that the Italian government is willing to demonise its own opposition, even if this opposition consists of law-abiding, tax paying and non-violent citizens who it is supposed to serve. The Italian government systematically underplayed the consequences of the base planned at Dal Molin, it blocked any initiative for democratic and inclusive debate, it even blocked a regional referendum to be held on the matter initiated by the democratically-chosen mayor of the city.

The Italian government has also demonstrated over the past years that it intentionally subverts its own regulations and laws, in order to prevent adequate studies on the economic and social consequences of the military bases already existing in Vicenza, such as Ederle, and of the new US base planned at Dal Molin. Environmental impact studies were not conducted, although Italian law requires that they be carried out before any major construction project. The reason for this – as we all know – is the expected negative outcome of such a study, for the base is planned next to a UNESCO World Heritage site, and on top of the largest natural fresh water reservoir in the region. The Italian government also knows that Dal Molin is a bad idea, but it refuses – at all costs – to recognise its own mistake.

This, sadly, tells us something about the state of affairs in international relations. Apparently, being a docile ally of the US is more important to the Italian government than serving the needs and interests of its own population.

In addition, it can and will be held against the US government that it deliberately looks away when a ‘host country’ violates the democratic rights of its own citizens.

It takes bravery, perserverance and - to use an American expression – “balls” to do what you in Vicenza have done: To challenge head-on a state determined to trample the rights of its own citizens, and with that in mind, your relentless struggle for justice is becoming a modern example of the power and determination of ordinary people in the face of overwhelming state pressure.

During recent visits to Washington, where representatives of your movement tried to reason with representatives of the US government and the US army, it became clear that the US believes that Vicenza is a perfect location for its military. Why, you wonder? Because life in Vicenza is so good. The mountain air, the medieval city centre, the friendly people……. It became clear that the US government, despite all your efforts to reason with them, is under the misguided impression that you like to live with an increasing number of military personnel, who can’t be bothered to speak your language, who do not share your culture of peace and who will not take into account the fact that Italians in general want nothing to do with the wars they are fighting. Apparently, the fact that you have been campaigning and demonstrating without using violence, and trying to use rational arguments rather than cheap slogans, and without resorting to blaming individual US soldiers for the wrongs of the military machine they are part of – all of this led to the idea in Washington that the people of Vicenza actually like the US army. We need to correct that misunderstanding, and therefore the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases fully endorses the non-violent “inhospitality” actions undertaken by the NoDalMolin Campaign. If the US is thinking of moving Africom to Vicenza because it is such a fine place to live in, we apparently need to make sure it is not.

They call us anti-American, but I’m sure you, like all of us would think and act the same if the bases in and around your town were operated by Russians, or the French, or any other foreign army. Instead, it is anti-Vicenzanism that we have to fight here: the idea that the grandiose military fantasies of some decision makers in Washington and Rome can override the needs, desires, and legitimate concerns of the people of Vicenza.

Hosting a base is giving up sovereignty, independence. And ending such an undesired situation starts with regaining sovereignty, by declaring independence.

So we declare independence. And we send ALL troops home.

On behalf of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases,

In solidarity,

Wilbert van der Zeijden, June 29, 2009, Amsterdam

Text Fwd: CIA has Distributed 400 Million Dollars Inside Iran to Evoke a Revolution

* Informed in Information Clearing House*

CIA has Distributed 400 Million Dollars Inside Iran to Evoke a Revolution
June 18, 2009, Pak Alert Press

Former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig claims the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has distributed 400 million dollars inside Iran to evoke a revolution.

In a phone interview with the Pashto Radio on Monday, General Beig said that there is undisputed intelligence proving the US interference in Iran.

“The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election,” he added.

Pakistan’s former army chief of joint staff went on to say that the US wanted to disturb the situation in Iran and bring to power a pro-US government.

He congratulated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re- election for the second term in office, noting that Pakistan relationship with Iran has improved during his 4-year presidency.

“Ahmadinejad’s re-election is a decisive point in regional policy and if Pakistan and Afghanistan unite with Iran, the US has to leave the area, especially the occupied Afghanistan,” Beig added.

See More

*Related articles

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009629151258105455.html
Iran recount gives Ahmadinejad win, June 29, 2009

http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m6d28-Secret-camera-leads-to-arrest-of-9-in-British-embassy-in-Iran?cid=email-this-article
Secret camera leads to arrest of 9 in British embassy in Iran
June 28, 2009

Text Fwd: US Heavy Meddle in Iran

Ajax Redux

US Heavy Meddle in Iran

By Lord Baltimore

June 28, 2009 "Wide Asleep in America" --- The Western press has clearly taken a side and has successfully managed to drag its uninformed audience along with it. News reports all refer to the continuing groundswell of protest to the election results as an "unprecedented" show of courage, resistance, and people power against the government not seen in Iran since the 1979 revolution.

But what we have seen this past week seems to have far more in common with the events of fifty-six years ago, rather than just thirty.

In 1953, the United States government, at the behest of Britain, tasked CIA operatives Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. and Donald Wilber to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran, in order to put an end to the process of oil nationalization by Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. This nationalism "outraged the British, who had 'bought' the exclusive right to exploit Iranian oil from a corrupt Shah, and the Americans, who feared that allowing nationalization in Iran would encourage leftists around the world." The coup d'etat, which took a mere three weeks to execute, was accomplished in a number of stages. First, members of the Iranian Parliament and leaders of political parties were bribed to oppose Mossadegh publicly, thereby making the government appear fragmented and not unified. Newspaper owners, editors, columnists and reporters were then paid off in order to spread lies and propaganda against the Prime Minister.

Furthermore, high-ranking clerics, influential businessmen, members of the police, security forces, and military were bribed, as well. Roosevelt hired the leaders of street gangs in Tehran, using them to help create the impression that the rule of law had totally disintegrated in Iran and that the government had no control over its population. Stephen Kinzer, journalist and author of All the Shah's Men, tells us that "at one point, [Roosevelt] hired a gang to run through the streets of Tehran, beating up any pedestrian they found, breaking shop windows, firing their guns into mosques, and yelling, 'We love Mossadegh and communism.' This would naturally turn any decent citizen against him." In a stroke of manipulative genius, Roosevelt then hired a second mob to attack the first mob, thereby giving the Iranian people the impression that there was no police presence and that civil society had devolved into complete chaos, with the government totally incapable of restoring order. Kinzer elaborates,

They rampaged through the streets by the tens of thousands. Many of them, I think, never even really understood they were being paid by the C.I.A. They just knew they had been given a good day’s wage to go out in the street and chant something. Many politicians whipped up the crowds during those days...They started storming government buildings. There were gunfights in front of important buildings.

After all was said and done, Prime Minister Mossadegh had been deposed and a military coup returned the monarchy to Iran by installing the pro-western Mohammed Reza Pahlevi on the Peacock throne. The Shah's brutal, tyrannical dictatorship - established, supported, and funded by the United States - lasted 26 years. In 1979, the Iranian people returned the favor.

So what have we been seeing in Iran this past week?

Read More

* Related:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22928.htm
Does The West Really Understand What Goes On In Iran?
By Nasima Yamchi
June 28, 2009

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22919.htm
U.S. Dollars Support Iranian "Dissidents"
By Ken Dilanian
June 26, 2009 "USA TODAY"

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2009_06_14_archive.html
[ CIA, Iran and the Election Riots, June 14, 2009]

Reunification, NATO Expansion Revive German Global Combat Role

* StopNATO*
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906570,00.html
Time Magazine
June 27, 2009

Will Germany's Army Ever Be Ready for Battle?
By Tristana Moore

-The German army as it stands today is a relatively young creation, born after a
period of demilitarization following the end of World War II. A defensive army,
the Bundeswehr has become increasingly engaged in international missions and is
coming under pressure to step up its involvement in out-and-out warfare.

-"The German public is still reluctant to accept a combat role for the
Bundeswehr," Henning Riecke, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign
Relations, tells TIME. "But Germany should become more active in Afghanistan and
allow troops to go into combat, if needed even in the south of the country. It's
time for Germany to be more flexible in Afghanistan."

-Since the 1990s, after reunification, German forces have become more involved
in military missions abroad....There are currently 247,000 soldiers enrolled in
the Bundeswehr and German troops are now serving all over the world, in places
such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Lebanon.


Berlin: On June 15, the German army's General Wolfgang Schneiderhan found
himself in front of an audience of politicians and senior officers defending
military policy — on sleeping bags.

Many German soldiers "are whingeing to high heaven," Schneiderhan said at a
reception thrown by the parliamentary army ombudsman, complaining about
everything from being sent on yet another overseas tour of duty to the
"unsuitable" sleeping bags they are given for their deployment in the Congo.
Then Schneiderhan did some complaining of his own, noting the tendency for his
officers to delegate blame, with no one taking responsibility for their actions.
"We can't guarantee an all-round, feel-good experience for our soldiers," he
said.
....

The German army as it stands today is a relatively young creation, born after a
period of demilitarization following the end of World War II. A defensive army,
the Bundeswehr has become increasingly engaged in international missions and is
coming under pressure to step up its involvement in out-and-out warfare....

Germany is the third biggest troop contributor to the NATO-led international
peacekeeping force there, with 3,700 German troops serving in Kabul and in
northern Afghanistan, around Mazar-e-Sharif, where Germany heads the northern
regional command. More German soldiers are now being sent to Afghanistan in the
run-up to the elections in August, bringing the total number to 4,200 by late
summer. There are also plans to send 300 more German troops to the country to
help support NATO's deployment of surveillance aircraft.

Germany's Afghan mission is governed by a parliamentary mandate that limits most
troops to peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in the relatively peaceful
north of Afghanistan. Even so, at least 35 German soldiers have been killed in
Afghanistan since early 2002, most recently on Tuesday, when three died near the
northern town of Kunduz after their patrol came under fire. The mission is very
unpopular back home, but Germany has been feeling pressure from its NATO allies
to pull more of its weight and send troops to the south, the scene of fierce
battles with Taliban insurgents.

"The German public is still reluctant to accept a combat role for the
Bundeswehr," Henning Riecke, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign
Relations, tells TIME. "But Germany should become more active in Afghanistan and
allow troops to go into combat, if needed even in the south of the country. It's
time for Germany to be more flexible in Afghanistan."
....
The legacy of Germany's Nazi past has led to military limits being written into
the country's constitution. Germany was demilitarized after World War II ended
in 1945, and the process of remilitarization has only developed over time. The
Bundeswehr was formed in 1955, when West Germany joined NATO, but the
constitution held that the role of Germany's armed forces would be strictly
defensive. Initially, the German army's main job was to work with its NATO
allies to prevent any attack that might come from Warsaw Pact members.

According to Dieter Kruger, a military historian at the Institute for Military
History in Potsdam, it was only after France left NATO in 1966 that Germany's
military role became stronger. "In the past, there was no idea of deploying
German troops abroad, except in specific cases, like helping in natural
disasters," he says. "Up until the end of the Cold War, Germany had a
well-trained army, but it was more used to bureaucratic procedures."

Since the 1990s, after reunification, German forces have become more involved in
military missions abroad....There are currently 247,000 soldiers enrolled in the
Bundeswehr and German troops are now serving all over the world, in places such
as Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Lebanon.

But some say the Bundeswehr, which is a conscript army, is too bureaucratic and
ill-equipped to deal with the modern-day challenges of combat. "Germany's armed
forces are often overstretched. There are too many bases in Germany, too many
personnel and the equipment is often old-fashioned," says Riecke of the German
Council on Foreign Relations. "There is long-overdue reform under way to make
the Bundeswehr leaner. It should be easier to deploy forces quickly abroad," he
adds, referring to far-reaching plans to modernize the army's equipment and
scale back troop numbers.

In the meantime, General Schneiderhan may have to steel himself for more
complaints. U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to beef up the U.S. military
presence in Afghanistan, but will he be able to persuade NATO allies, including
Germany, to increase their own efforts there? The German parliamentary troop
mandate that limits the army mostly to peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts
runs out in December, after the federal elections. When that happens, German
soldiers could find that uncomfortable sleeping bags are the least of their
problems.
===========================
Stop NATO

Text Fwd: S. Korea to acquire new missiles for Aegis destroyer

Yonhap news, June 28, 2009

S. Korea to acquire new missiles for Aegis destroyer

By Lee Joon-seung

SEOUL, June 28 (Yonhap) -- South Korea plans to acquire 40 new surface-to-air missiles within the month for its Aegis destroyer, a military source said Sunday.

The government source, who declined to be identified, said all of the U.S.-made Standard Missile-2s (SM-2) will be loaded on to the 7,600-ton King Sejong the Great destroyer.

The 166-meter-long ship, equipped with a phased array SPY-1D radar, can track up to a thousand targets simultaneously at a range of 500km and intercept threats from up to 150 km away. It has been used to detect long-range ballistic missiles fired by North Korea that were 1,000 km away.

The destroyer is currently the largest surface combat vessel in the South Korean Navy and can carry up to 80 SM-2s in vertical launch systems. It is also armed with locally made anti-ship missiles, a 127mm cannon, 30mm Goalkeeper close-in-weapons systems and lightweight, rolling airframe missiles.

The 40 SM-2s, which will arrive by the end of June, are extended-range models and can hit targets up to 160km away. They will allow the South Korean ship to fully use its advanced detection, tracking and attack capabilities, the source said.

The missiles are the main anti-aircraft munitions used by the U.S. Navy and have evolved over the years to deal with threats coming from various altitudes and those equipped with advanced electronic counter measures. They may also be used against ballistic missiles.

Related to the missile purchase, the U.S. government in May notified lawmakers that it has authorized the sale of 46 SM-2 Block IIIA and 35 Block IIIB missiles to South Korea under the foreign military sales arrangement.

The military source said that Seoul is looking to acquire next-generation Extended Range Active Missiles, also known as the SM-6 system, from Washington along with Patriot-3 (PAC-3) missiles by 2014. The PAC-3s can be deployed at sea and are designed to intercept ballistic missiles.

yonngong@yna.co.kr

Graphic Fwd: Revised Korean Defense Reform 2020

* Image reference: http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_conews&action=viewForm&uid=6536&page=1

* Image source
Korea Times, June 27, 2009

* Related English articles

Yonhap News, June 28, 2009
June 28, 2009
Military to operate 'experimental' unit to test-drive restructuring

Korea Times, Jung, Sung-Ki, 06-24-2009 21:53
US Nuclear Umbrella: Double-Edged Sword for S. Korea


* Related Korean articles

http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_conews&action=viewForm&uid=6538&page=1
Chosun Ilbo
"북(北) 정권 붕괴에 대비 무기도입 본격 추진"(조선, 09.6.2&)
2009/06/2715:34

http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_conews&action=viewForm&uid=6539&page=1
Yonhap News
<그래픽> 국방개혁 기본계획- 북 장사정포 대비 타격 개요(연합뉴스, 09.6.26)
2009/06/2715:38

http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_conews&action=viewForm&uid=6540&page=1
Kyeonghang
“北 위협 우선 대처” 지상군 늘려…수정된 국방개혁 기본계획 (경향, 09.6.27)
2009/06/2715:41

http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_conews&action=viewForm&uid=6541&page=1
Kyeonghang
지상군 강화·미군의존 높여…거꾸로 가는 ‘국방 개혁안’ (경향, 09.6.27)
2009/06/2715:42

http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_conews&action=viewForm&uid=6542&page=1
MK
4년만에 수정된 `국방개혁2020 계획` 살펴보니 (매일경제, 09.6.27)

Text fwd: COMPASSIONATE EMPIRE - A BIBLICAL LESSON

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2009/06/compassionate-empire.html

Saturday, June 27, 2009
COMPASSIONATE EMPIRE - A BIBLICAL LESSON

Global strike and cyberwarfare - these are two concepts that you'd better get used to hearing as the US military empire moves to expand its doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance.

The basic idea of cyberwarfare is that we crawl inside the "offending nation's" computer system and shut down (hack) their ability to see what is happening as we launch "preemptive" attacks on them.

Then using "global strike" weapons like nuclear missiles, the military space plane, and other technologies we hit them hard while they are blind.

All very nice stuff, isn't it? The message is that you'd better do as we tell you and save yourself the grief. That's the compassionate empire in us talking. Very proper like, as they say in the United Kingdom.

This is the stuff new arms races are made of....what self-respecting country is going to stand back and let you develop the ability to push them around and not find a way to respond?

The US says we want to "reset" relations with Russia, we want to see China stop building up its military, we want Korea and Iran to stop building nuclear weapons.

Maybe, as the Bible says, "You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye."

Text Fwd: Pentagon Launches Afghanistan-Pakistan Warfighting Center

StopNATO

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=54919
U.S. Department of Defense
American Forces Press Service
June 26, 2009

Coordination Cell to Provide Focus, Expertise for Afghanistan Mission
By Donna Miles

-Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal came up with the PACC concept, based on a similar model that’s proven successful in Iraq, while he was director of the Joint Staff.

-Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this week the new cell’s focused support for McChrystal’s effort will have a big impact on advancing the administration’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.

WASHINGTON: The new Pakistan Afghanistan Coordination Cell being stood up at the Pentagon is working to ensure expertise developed during deployments to Afghanistan gets channeled directly back into supporting warfighters on the ground.

About 30 officers who recently returned from deployments in Afghanistan make up the core of the cell, which is expected to grow to 50 or 60 members in the coming months. Their sole focus will be on issues related to Afghanistan and Pakistan, a senior military official told reporters earlier this week.

The staff was selected based on members’ expertise in areas ranging from intelligence to policy, plans and operations to logistics and communications, and works side by side within the newly renamed National Joint Operations and Intelligence Center.

“What’s different at the PACC is that we have people from every functionality throughout the military in one place and in one flat organization,” said a cell member who led reporters through a workspace dominated by low-walled cubicles designed to promote easy, close coordination.

“So when an issue related to Afghanistan or Pakistan comes up, we’re all right here, able to deal with it a lot faster,” he said. “We can sit down and look at it, and everybody brings their expertise so we can address the problem.”

To ensure this expertise doesn’t get lost through the standard assignments process, PACC members will alternate exclusively between deployments to Afghanistan and duty at the coordination cell.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, said maintaining a dedicated team with a long-term focus on Afghanistan keeps those with the latest battlefield experience and expertise in the fight after they redeploy.

“Even when they’re back in the states, they’re staying in this, and then they rotate back out there,” he told the Center for a New American Society during its June 11 conference here.

“We’re a group of people who will be constantly focused” on Afghanistan and Pakistan, said an official at the cell. “We’re looking for continuity. We’re looking for focus. We’re looking for expertise. And we don’t want to do it one year at a time.”

Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal came up with the PACC concept, based on a similar model that’s proven successful in Iraq, while he was director of the Joint Staff.

Now, as the top military commander in Afghanistan, McChrystal will benefit directly from the PACC’s talent pool, committed to breaking through obstacles to get him and his forces what they need - as quickly as possible.

“We can’t wait a weekend to get something they need forward,” said an official at the cell. “This is about speed and precision. We have to move at the speed of war.”

Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this week the new cell’s focused support for McChrystal’s effort will have a big impact on advancing the administration’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.

“Through the PACC, which will have liaison officers from other relevant [U.S. government] departments and agencies, real-time information on all aspects of U.S. operations and programs in the region will be shared, integrated and de-conflicted,” she said in written testimony submitted at the June 24 hearing.

Flournoy called the cell an important step toward developing more efficient and effective coordination - within the military, and among U.S. agencies and coalition partners.
....
Three weeks after the PACC began standing up within the bowels of the Pentagon, cell members say they’re already seeing evidence that it’s making a difference.

Afghanistan experts are no longer tucked behind different doors requiring special classifications and authorities to enter. Now they’re able to lean across their desks to confer on issues face to face.

Staffing decisions are being cut dramatically. “What might take two to three weeks, we can solve in an hour-long conversation when we’re put in the same room,” an official said.

“We can be the catalyst. We can be the accelerant,” he said. “The PACC might not be able to solve all the problems, but we can find all the people who can.”
===========================
Stop NATO

Text fwd: N. Korea denounces S. Korea-U.S. summit and six party talks as a “shattered bowl”

* Image source/ description* same as below:
"North Koreans participate in a rally held to commemorate the June 25 anti-U.S. Day in front of the Pueblo, a U.S. spy ship that North Korea seized 41 years ago, in Pyongyang in this June 23, 2009 picture. (REUTERS/KCNA)"

The Hankyoreh Media Company
N. Korea denounces S. Korea-U.S. summit and six party talks as a “shattered bowl” N. Korea criticizes timing as indicating Lee’s repudiation of the June 15 Joint Declaration, and demonstrates further resolve for nuclear armament Posted on : Jun.26,2009 12:19 KST

North Korea has presented its first response nine days after the South Korea-U.S. summit held in Washington on June 16. A commentator’s piece entitled “Disgusting kiss shared between a master and its dog in the White House Rose Garden” was published in the Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea’s Workers’ Party, and included an itemized critique of the agreements and statements on North Korea made by the two leaders. Commentator’s pieces in the Rodong Sinmun are pieces that contain policies organized at the party level, and are in effect a formal response by North Korea. However, aside from conveying criticism, the piece made no direct or specific mention of any response measures.

In reference to the summit’s agreement that the U.S. would provide extended deterrence, the Rodong Sinmun said this “ultimately merely adds greater justification for us possessing a nuclear deterrent, and it is asking for the calamitous situation of having a fire shower of our nuclear retaliation fall over South Chosun(Korea) ‘should an incident occur.’” Previously, North Korean media had claimed that its nuclear weapons were for defense against the U.S. and were not a threat to South Korea, but recently they have been implicitly suggesting that these weapons could be used towards South Korea. On Tuesday, the North Korean website Uriminzokkiri included statements saying, “Our mighty military strength, including our nuclear deterrent, is not at all simply for show,” and “The revolutionary armed forces know not a shed of mercy for those who mess with its autonomy, and the Lee Myung-bak administration cannot be an exception.”

In reference to the discussion of sanctions against North Korea, the newspaper said “The U.S. and others are going on about financial sanctions and making a lot of noise as though we cannot develop satellites or nuclear capabilities if our line of money is cut off.” The newspaper added, “However, we have in place everything we need to strengthen the nuclear deterrent, and in terms of uranium ore alone, we have the world’s largest deposits.”

In reference to the potential of five-party talks that leaves North Korea, the newspaper declared, “The six-party talks are already a shattered bowl, and ‘abandoning nuclear capabilities’ has long since been a thing of the past.”

Referring to the stipulation of “unification based on principles of liberal democracy and the market economy” in the South Korea-U.S. joint vision, the newspaper said, “President Lee Myung-bak is showing that not only has he not changed a whit in his anti-republic confrontational policy, he pursues it even more villainously with each passing day.”

The newspaper also called President Lee’s references to the Kaesong (Gaeseong) Industrial Complex a “repudiation of working-level meetings” and a declaration that he would “ultimately trample the June 15 Joint Declaration and thrust North-South relations into a confrontation.”

The newspaper also criticized President Lee’s choice of a date for his U.S. visit, saying, “The traitor Lee Myung-bak went through all possible dates and chose to go see his master on June 15, the anniversary of the announcement of the North-South Joint Declaration.”

The newspaper also indicated dissatisfaction with U.S. President Barack Obama by saying, “Seeing the new master, who makes a lot of noise about change and espouses a distinction from the Bush administration, putting his own stamp down (on President Lee) recalls a Chosun saying that ‘Green is the same color.’”

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]


© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company.

Text fwd: US Nuclear Umbrella: Double-Edged Sword for S. Korea

Korea Times
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter, June 24, 2009

Amid growing concern about North Korea's high-stake nuclear gamesmanship, the United State has vowed to provide an ``extended'' nuclear umbrella to South Korea, where no tactical nuclear weapons are present.

Debates are under way, however, on the effectiveness of this in the case of conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

Proponents say the U.S. commitment to providing extended nuclear deterrence capabilities will help prevent the North from ``miscalculating'' that it would gain anything from missile and nuclear tests.

Opponents argue the U.S. nuclear deterrence pledge could only provoke the communist North and send the wrong message that Pyongyang is a recognized nuclear state.

``The U.S. extended deterrence means a stronger and broader defense against the North's chemical, biological and missile attacks as well as nuclear attacks. So this is huge step in the joint defense of South Korea and the United States against North Korea,'' a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) said.

``But there is concern, at the same time, that talking too much of the nuclear umbrella would give North Korea a good excuse to claim itself to be a nuclear power,'' the researcher said.

At the June 16 summit in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama reaffirmed that the United States would provide an ``extended nuclear umbrella'' to South Korea in response to increasing nuclear threats from North Korea. Pyongyang conducted a second nuclear test last month and test-fired several short-range missiles, defying calls by the international community to give up its nuclear ambitions.

This was the first time for a U.S. leader to clarify at a summit coverage of South Korea under its nuclear umbrella.

The U.S. government has promised since 1978 that it will provide necessary nuclear deterrence capabilities for South Korea against North Korea in the annual South Korea-U.S. defense ministers' meetings, but the issue had not been discussed at a summit level.

Under the extended nuclear deterrence pledge, military experts say, the U.S. military would mobilize all necessary capabilities to neutralize North Korean nuclear provocations.

For example, the U.S. Air Force could send B-2/52 bombers and other fighter aircraft carrying nuclear bombs, such as the B-61, to hit nuclear facilities in the North. Tomahawk cruise missiles could be launched from nuclear-powered submarines to strike targets.

The B-61 bomb is known to have a ``dial able'' explosive power of 0.3 to 340 kilotons and believed to be capable of destroying North Korea's key underground facilities.

U.S. fighter aircraft would also be ready to conduct surgical strikes with high-end bombs, such as bunker busters.

Redeployment of US nuclear weapons in S. Korea?

Some conservatives argue the government should ask the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) to re-deploy its tactical nuclear weapons to deter nuclear-armed North Korea.

Tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) typically refer to short-range weapons, including land-based missiles with a range of up to 500 kilometers and air- and sea-launched weapons with a range of around 600 kilometers.

The USFK removed its TNWs in 1991. Prompted by mounting concerns about the security of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, then U.S. President George Bush announced in September 1991 that the United States would eliminate its entire worldwide inventory of ground-launched TNWs and would remove all nuclear weapons from surface ships and attack submarines.

Jeon Seong-hoon at the Korea Institute for National Unification said, ``As North Korea's nuclear capability increases, the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear umbrella could decrease. In that context, I believe, the redeployment of USFK's tactical nuclear weapons, at least on a temporary basis, could be the best option.''

A military official concurred. The official, who requested to remain anonymous, said the USFK should deploy tactical nuclear weapons again as long as it is not violating the 1991 Washington-Moscow arms control agreement.

``Redeployment of air-launched tactical nuclear weapons do not violate the 1991 agreement,'' the official said. ``If there were 10 tactical nuclear weapons in the South, North Korea's nuclear threat could be easily neutralized.''

An Army commanding general, who has been in charge of military operations, expressed a negative view about the redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons to the South.

``Realistically, it's impossible and not feasible,'' the officer said, asking not to be named. ``Politically, such a move would face severe opposition from China.''

Self-Reliant Deterrence

South Korea's military is also planning to acquire weapons systems to help deter North Korea's lingering nuclear and missile threats on its own.

The military plans to increase the procurement numbers of precision-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) and air-launched cruise missiles. It aims to buy 1,400 JDAMs by 2013 to bring its total number to 4,551.

The JDAM is a guidance tail kit that converts existing unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, adverse weather munitions. Carried by advanced fighter jets, including F-15Ks, the bomb has a glide range of 24 kilometers and can strike within 13 meters of its target. It can penetrate up to 2.4 meters of concrete.

The South Korean Air Force is also seeking to equip some of its KF-16 fleet with JDAMs.

In addition, the South plans to acquire about 270 joint air-to-surface, standoff (cruise) missiles (JASSM) by 2011. The JASSM, developed by U.S. Lockheed Martin, is an autonomous, long-range, air-to-ground, precision missile designed to destroy high-value, fixed and mobile targets.

Nuclear Submarines?

Beginning in 2018, South Korea plans to build indigenous 3,000-ton KSS-III submarines fitted with domestically built submarine combat systems aimed at automating target detection, tracking, threat assessment and weapons control. The heavy sub will be armed with indigenous ship-to-ground cruise missiles and be capable of underwater operations for up to 50 days with an advanced AIP system, Navy officials said.

According to informed government sources, the Navy wants to deploy about six KSS-III submarines and then may push to develop a nuclear-powered submarine as a hedge against future uncertainties in Northeast Asia.

Many observes admitted the Navy needs nuclear-powered submarines in the long term but are skeptical about the plan, citing the potential political and diplomatic backlash, particularly from the United States.

South Korea initially pushed for developing a nuclear-powered sub in 2004 but canceled the initiative later for these reasons.

``A nuclear-powered submarine plan involves both military and political aspects,'' a defense analyst said. ``Nuclear subs will, of course, offer benefits to the Navy in terms of much longer operational range and fuel efficiency. But the thing is, unless legal and political problems are resolved first, we can't go forward with the plan.''

The analyst apparently referred to a 1991 inter-Korean non-nuclear declaration and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which non-nuclear weapon states such as South Korea are required to place all of their nuclear materials under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure they are not used to develop atomic weapons.

Some proponents say that because nuclear-powered submarines use low-grade nuclear fuel, they do not violate the denuclearization pledge. Opponents say that since a nuclear-powered sub would require enriched uranium fuel, the ability to enrich uranium also could be used to produce material for building nuclear weapons.

Nuclear submarines can remain underwater much longer than conventional submarines, propelled by diesel generators, and are considered a strategic weapon second only to aircraft carriers.

To thwart North Korea's asymmetrical capabilities and other regional hostile forces, the Navy has emphasized strengthening its submarine fleet. The Navy has nine German-made Type-209 1,200-ton submarines and three Type-214 1,800-ton submarines, first built locally under technical cooperation with HDW of Germany. They are all diesel- and electric-powered.

``Submarine fleets are seen as one of the most powerful features of any military force,'' said the analyst. ``For South Korea, the requirements and roles of advanced attack submarines are essential to help neutralize the North's increasing asymmetrical capabilities.''

Six more Type-214 subs are scheduled to be commissioned by 2018, when the Navy will inaugurate a submarine command. The Type-214 submarine, a core part of the future strategic mobile squadrons, is armed with modern torpedoes and submarine-to-surface missiles.

The 65.3-meter-long sub can submerge to depths of up to 400 meters, with a maximum submerged speed of 20 knots. With the help of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP), which improves its underwater performance and gives it stealth capability, the submarine can carry out underwater operations for as long as two weeks, putting Guam in its operational range, according to the Navy.

The sub's ISUS-90 integrated sensor enables operators to detect about 240 targets simultaneously and track 32 targets.

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr

* Related blog *

Letter Fwd: Letter Sent to the Presidents of the Republic of Korea and the United States on the Occasion of the Korean-US Summit Conference (2009.6.16)

Text Fwd: Like killing flies

Like Killing Flies
http://www.timesrecord.com/articles/2009/06/23/opinion/letters/doc4a410a46e9925659592879.txt

Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Times Record (Brunswick, Maine)

Dear Editor:
The national media made a big deal about President Obama killing a fly. His “I got the sucker” was even compared to a similar moment by honest Abe Lincoln.

But sadly little time in the national media is spent describing the tragic consequences to hundreds of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan who have been killed by United States unmanned aerial vehicles, or “drones” as they are popularly called.

These drones are directed by military space satellites and flown by U.S. soldiers sitting at computer terminals inside Creech Air Force Base near Las Vegas, Nev. The Air Force named these drones the “Predator” and the “Reaper.” The pilots watch in “real time” as cameras on the drones send back images from the war zone and in split-second time a button is pressed and missiles are fired. Is it the Taliban? Is it a wedding?

Can there be the slightest doubt that this “hands off” way of killing today is absolutely repugnant? What does it say about us as a nation that we can cavalierly kill from a distance with little conscience or public outcry?

It’s as if we are just killing flies.

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)


* Related Fwd article
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=131441413568&h=LG5kz&u=CKyiA&ref=nf
'Dozens dead' in US drone strike
June 24, 2009

Text fwd: Pentagon Prepares For Conflict With Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea

StopNATO

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98831&sectionid=3510203
Press TV
June 23, 2009

Pentagon reviews war planning strategy

-While the US has been fighting in two separate fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan
in the past six years, Pentagon officials told the paper that the military needs
to be ready for possible operations against North Korea and Iran or even China
and Russia, which would present a hybrid range of challenges.

The US Defense Department plans to prepare the army for a complex mix of
conventional battles and countering terrorist attacks in the future conflicts.

The department, in a new strategy, intends to assure that the military is able
to handle a range of possible threats, including computer network attacks,
attempts to blind satellite positioning systems, precision missiles and roadside
bombing strikes, plus TV and online propaganda campaigns.

The Pentagon's new strategy will reject the historic American strategy of
preparation to fight two major wars at a time and will require training, troop
deployment, weapons procurement and other aspects of military planning, the New
York Times reported.

While the US has been fighting in two separate fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan in
the past six years, Pentagon officials told the paper that the military needs to
be ready for possible operations against North Korea and Iran or even China and
Russia, which would present a hybrid range of challenges.

The new strategy "derives from my view that the old way of looking at irregular
warfare as being one kind of conflict and conventional warfare as a discreet
kind of warfare is an outdated concept. Conflict in the future will slide up and
down a scale, both in scope or scale and in lethality,” Defense Secretary
Robert Gates said in a news conference last week.

Senior officials say hybrid warfare will be adopted as a central premise of
military planning in the top-to-bottom review required every four years by
Congress - namely the Quadrennial Defense Review - which will determine how
military budget is spent on arms, and influences the military training reforms.

The previous Pentagon strategy review focused on a four-square chart that viewed
the security challenges then as including traditional conflicts; irregular
warfare by terrorists; unconventional weapons used by terrorists or rogue
states; and disruptive threats, in which new technologies could counter American
advantages.

"The 'quad chart' was useful in its time...but we aren't using it as a point of
reference or departure,” said under secretary of defense for policy Michele
Flournoy. “I think hybrid will be the defining character. The traditional,
neat categories - those are types that really don't match reality any more.”
===========================
Stop NATO

Text fwd: Korea Develops Anti-Submarine Missile

Text and image source: Chosun Ilbo(* South Korean's most conservative, right wing newspaper)

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/06/23/2009062300619.html
Korea Develops Anti-Submarine Missile
Jun. 23, 2009 10:47 KST

The Korean-made long-range anti-submarine missile The Korean-made long-range anti-submarine missile "Red Shark" is fired from a naval destroyer. /Courtesy of the Agency for Defense Development

Korea has developed a long-range anti-submarine missile which can hit an enemy submarine about 20 km away. The "Red Shark" has a longer range and far sharper accuracy than the light torpedoes normally fired by conventional vessels or aircraft.

The Agency for Defense Development on Monday said the Defense Acquisition Program Agency developed the Red Shark at a cost of about W100 billion (US$1=W1,276) over nine years.

Europe, Russia and the U.S. have anti-submarine missiles, but the Red Shark is only the second vertical-launch anti-submarine rocket developed in the world following the U.S., the ADD said.

Red Sharks are 5.7 m long and 0.38 m in diameter, weigh 820 kg, and cost about W2 billion.

They will be installed in the Korean-made vertical launch system of the 5,000 t-class KDX-II and KDX-III Aegis destroyers.



http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/06/10/2009061000825.html
Report: Korea Ranks 11th in World Defense Spending
Jun. 10, 2009 11:11 KST


http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/04/10/2009041061034.html
S.Korea to Beef Up Missile-Detection Hardware
Apr. 10, 2009 12:31 KST

Copyright (c)2009 DIGITAL CHOSUN All rights reserved.
Contact letters@chosun.com for more information.
Privacy Statement Contact privacy@chosun.com

Text fwd: Dispatching S. Korean troops to Afganistan made it on South Korea-U.S. summit‘s agenda

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/361698.html
Dispatching S. Korean troops to Afganistan made it on South Korea-U.S. summit‘s agenda LFP spokesperson reconfirms the fact after Cheong Wa Dae denies the exchange
Posted on : Jun.22,2009 12:42 KST

It was confirmed belatedly Sunday South Korea President Lee Myung-bak and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the dispatch of South Korean troops to Afghanistan during the summit held in Washington. However, the contents of the discussion have not yet been confirmed.

According to Park Sun-young, the spokesperson of opposition Liberty Forward Party (LFP), President Lee Myung-bak reported to LFP Chairperson Lee Hoi-chang and ruling Grand National Party Chairperson Park Hee-tae that US President Barack Obama had requested that South Korea voluntarily send troops to Afghanistan. Park said that Lee had responded by saying he would consider sending troops as part of a peacekeeping force.

As Park’s comments have generated controversy, a core official in the Cheong Wa Dae (the presidential office in South Korea or Blue House) denied the exchange and said, “Obama had said given South Korea’s current political situation, it was not appropriate to ask South Korea to send troops, although it would be nice if South Korea decided to send troops on its own accord.” The official also added that Lee responded by saying he thought South Korea could expand its peace and reconstruction project efforts.

The same official added his own interpretation of the exchange by saying, “The U.S. president did not make an official request for troops, and Chairperson Lee Hoi-chang misunderstood increasing peace projects efforts with supplying a peacekeeing force.”

Following the Cheong Wa Dae’s denial, Park insisted that her briefing was correct. In a telephone interview with the Hankyoreh Park said, “I issued the briefing based on a memo made by Chairperson Lee Hoi-chang, and since the Cheong Wa Dae’s response, I have asked chairperson Lee to reconfirm the facts of what I said.”

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company.

Letter Fwd: Letter Sent to the Presidents of the Republic of Korea and the United States on the Occasion of the Korean-US Summit Conference (2009.6.16

Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea
June 16, 2009

The Korean-US summit conference will be opened in Washington DC on June 16. The agenda will include adopting an announcement about the "joint vision for the future ROK-US alliance", the North Korean nuclear problem, the question of a renewed dispatch of ROK troops to Afghanistan, etc. This summit conference, by means of reinforcing the aggressive ROK-US alliance, will increase the ROK's subordination to the US even more and make our nation's sacrifice and burden even heavier. Accordingly, below we clarify our position in opposition to this kind of ROK-US summit conference. Cancel the adoption of the "announcement of the joint vision for the future ROK-US alliance" which seeks to make permanent the aggressive ROK-US alliance! It has been arranged that at this summit conference between the two countries, they will adopt the announcement of the "joint vision for the future ROK-US alliance". This goes beyond the security of the ROK-US alliance; it extends into all spheres of life - politics, the economy, society, culture, everywhere; the essence of it is that it will be developed into a global alliance that is supposed to contribute to stability and peace, not only on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia, but throughout the entire world. The ROK and the US, as a way of justifying efficient cooperation in addressing global issues such as international terror, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, etc., are intensifying their mutual assistance in operations such as the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions or the Proliferation Security Initiative, and hastening the implementation of the ROK-US Free Trade Agreement. This is related to the forward expansion of the ROK-US alliance. The ROK and the US are enlarging the sphere of their alliance in all aspects. This expansion of the geographical scope to include the entire world is a violation of the ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which limits US troops' sphere of operations to defense against aggression from North Korea. The enlargement of the ROK-US alliance into a global alliance means that the ROK government is perpetuating its subordinate position, blindly obeying the US's demand that the alliance's resources be mobilized and that the US's declining hegemony be maintained. As a result of this, our nation's people must offer land and bear the costs of providing the US with military bases and training areas, buy weapons made in the US, assist in wars of aggression, and bear the burden of all kinds of sacrifices and expenses because of that. The ROK and the US intend to convert the ROK-US alliance into a global and permanent alliance. Burwell Bell, while acting as the USFK commander, said that he hoped that the US troops would be stationed in Korea even after a Korean peninsula peace agreement is concluded, and last July, Timothy Keating, the US Pacific commander, explained that while the USFK are stationed here permanently, the US troops would participate in humanitarian aid or disaster relief operations and the like. This shows clearly that the US intends to continue the stationing of the USFK and the ROK-US alliance permanently. The "joint vision for the future ROK-US alliance", which aims to perpetuate the aggressive ROK-US alliance, goes against the trend of our time, which is to establish a structure of peace and security for the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia by means of the withdrawal of foreign military forces, the abolition of the military alliance, and achieving peace and disarmament. In particular, stipulating "extended deterrence" in the "joint vision for the future ROK-US alliance", runs counter to the 9.19 joint statement which declares the goal of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Accordingly, we are resolutely opposed to the adoption of the "announcement of the joint vision for the future ROK-US alliance", which endangers peace on the Korean peninsula and world peace, and imposes on us all kinds of sacrifices and burdens. This new alliance will certainly place obstacles in the way of the current trend toward stable peace. We demand categorically that it be abandoned. Stop the sanctions and pressure against North Korea and enter into dialogue with North Korea immediately! Although North Korea asserted its right as a sovereign nation to launch a satellite, the US led the UN Security Council to pass resolution no. 1874, which imposes an embargo on the import or export of weapons, authorizes the inspection of cargo, imposes economic sanctions, etc. The day immediately following this, the 13th, North Korea issued an official statement declaring that it would proceed with the weaponization of plutonium and enrichment of uranium, and would regard any blockade of the North as equivalent to an act of war. The Korean peninsula nuclear problem cannot be resolved by sanctions and confrontation. Not even the omnidirectional blockade policy followed by the US Bush administration, which pushed military unilateralism to an extreme, could make North Korea submit. More stringent sanctions imposed by the US would certainly provoke North Korea into taking stronger counter-measures. Such sanctions and pressure will not solve the problem. On the contrary, they will only make the situation worse. If the US sincerely desires to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, we demand that it abandon its hostile policy toward North Korea, which is the original cause of the North Korean nuclear problem. In addition, we urge the US to enter into negotiations with the North, to conclude a peace agreement that will simultaneously resolve the questions of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the US's hostile policy toward the North, and to establish amicable relations between North Korea and the US. We also urge the Lee Myeong Bak government, that took the lead in imposing sanctions against the North, to give up its confrontational attitude and start to create the conditions for the purpose of direct North Korean-US dialogue. Stop the redeployment of ROK troops that increases support for the occupation of Afghanistan and for aggressive war! Walter Sharp, the USFK commander, declared in connection with the ROK's support for the Afghanistan war that “the Republic of Korea is ... working very closely with our forces in Afghanistan, with NATO forces that are there in order to be able to determine what is the best contribution, whether its money, forces, or materials." This shows that with reference to Afghanistan, they are considering not only noncombatant support, such as expanding the scope of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT), but even the dispatch of ROK military forces. The ROK government's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan endangers the lives and the national sovereignty of the Afghan people. Furthermore, it violates the ROK Constitution, which disavows aggressive war (article 5, paragraph 1) and violates the ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty (articles 2, 3), which authorizes operations only on the Korean peninsula, and is applicable only on occasion of the armed aggression from outside. Not only does this violate the ROK Constitution and the Mutual Defense Treaty; but it also breaks the ROK government's promise to the nation. After the tragic suicides of Sgt. Yoon Jang Ho and a member of the Saemmul Community Church, the ROK government promised that the ROK troops would be immediately evacuated from Afghanistan. We hereby strongly urge the Obama administration to cancel its demand for the redeployment of ROK military forces to Afghanistan, which constitutes a typical instance of the aggressive ROK-US alliance. We also urge the Lee Myeong Bak government not to give any further support to this war of aggression. 2009. 6. 16. Village People's Committee Against the Expansion of the Mugeonri Military Training Field; Support Committee for Prisoners of Conscience; Central Council for National Sovereignty and Reunification; Minkahyup Human Rights Group; Korean Council for Democratic Martyr; Korean Confederation of Trade Unions; Southern Headquarters of the Pan-Korean People's Alliance for Reunification; Korean Catholic Federation for Justice; Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea Participants of the 117th Joint Monthly Anti-US Rally → Click : [more] SPARK PHOTO → Click : [activities] South Korea US Proest - 2009.6.16

Text Fwd: US Marines Test New Missile In Japan, Australia

StopNATO
U.S. Marines in Japan
June 12, 2009
Marine Attack squadron fires missile from Harrier
Lance Cpl. Jeffrey Cordero


-The AMRAAM [Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile] is an aerial launched, radar-guided missile capable of traveling at speeds multiple times that of the speed of sound. With the aid of the pilot, it tracks its target until reaching close proximity where it is then guided by its own active radar.
"(The firing of the missile) could be a stepping stone for Marine Corps aviation readiness."


KADENA AIR BASE, Okinawa - Marines with Marine Attack Squadron 211, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, set the precedence in Marine Corps aviation advancement June 8, as the first fleet aircraft, forward deployed unit to fire the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile AIM-120B from an AV-8B Harrier.

The Yuma, Ariz. based unit is currently attached to the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit based out of Okinawa, Japan.

The AMRAAM is an aerial launched, radar-guided missile capable of traveling at speeds multiple times that of the speed of sound. With the aid of the pilot, it tracks its target until reaching close proximity where it is then guided by its own active radar.

"(The firing of the missile) could be a stepping stone for Marine Corps aviation readiness," said Master Sgt. Earnest Chaney, the ordnance division chief for VMA-211. "It shows the capabilities of the Harrier and the potential of the aircraft to deal with new weapons."

The AIM-120B AMRAAM was recently authorized for use by forward deployed units. Although it has been tested before, it is the first time to be used by a fleet aircraft forward deployed unit, according to Chaney.

The missile was launched at a tactical air launched decoy, deployed by an aircraft from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 225. Capt. Michael W. McKenney, a Harrier pilot with VMA-211, fired the only AIM-120B to be fired that day.

"Everything that it was supposed to do it did," Chaney said. "It functioned as advertised."

According to McKenney, the weapon is in its early stages of testing, gearing toward implementation.

The combined support of participating parties helped the unit employ the event in the most effective manner.

"There was a lot of effort from the entire squadron to make this a successful endeavor," said McKenney. "The Marines had to learn a new weapon system and be able to load and test it. Also VMFA-225 played a vital role in the shoot by providing training support. Without them we could not have done it."

According to McKenney, the test allowed them to see where the capabilities of the aircraft and the unit stand.

With the success of the shoot, VMA-211 is preparing for their deployment with the MEU and their participations in Exercise Talisman Saber 2009 in Australia next month.
===========================
Stop NATO

Text Fwd: [Editorial] Naro Center Will Be Home to Korea's Dreams of Space Exploration

* Image source/ description: Chosun Ilbo, June 13, 2009

‘Boys run in front of Korea's first space rocket during the completion ceremony of the Naro Space Center in Goheung, South Jeolla Province on Thursday. /Yonhap’

Note: The media here yesterday celebrated that the South Korea has become “only the 13th country in the world to possess its own space center” and that the “KSLV-I, the country's first space launch vehicle, will lift off from the Naro Space Center in July”. The most conservative right wing newspaper in Korea , Chosun Ilbo says “There are also plans to launch a lunar exploration satellite in 2020 and a lunar landing vehicle in 2025” .

[Editorial] Naro Center Will Be Home to Korea's Dreams of Space Exploration
June 13, 2009, The Chosun Ilbo

The Naro Space Center, embodying Korea's aspirations to explore space, was completed Thursday in Goheung, South Jeolla Province. Construction began eight and a half years ago in December of 2000, and its completion means Korea has become only the 13th country in the world to possess its own space center. KSLV-I, the country's first space launch vehicle, will lift off from the Naro Space Center in July, carrying the Science and Technology Satellite-2. If the satellite successfully enters orbit, Korea will become the 10th country in the world to achieve such a feat on its own, and mark Korea's first step towards becoming an advanced country in terms of space exploration.

Hyundai Heavy Industries and other domestic companies built the space center, based on a Russian blueprint, experiencing many problems on the way. Russia sent Korea the blueprint for the launch pad -- 21,631 A3 pages worth of information -- in March, 2007, four months later than promised. A further eight months were then spent changing the blueprint so that it met Korean specifications.

Russian experts said it would take at least 23 months to build a launch pad, even if their own technicians did it. However, Korea built it in just 19 months, while also developing 80 percent of the related technology on its own. The Russians were so impressed with Korea's skill in building the launch pad that KBTM, a Russian design company, has asked Korea to join a consortium building a new launch pad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazhakstan. Naro is the crowning result of the sweat and passion of our researchers and technicians who worked away from their families and without holidays.

Space is the final frontier for the human race. The world's major powers, including the United States, Russia, Europe, China, Japan and India have set out to explore and tap into outer space not only for national pride but also for economic benefits and national security. The space industry encompasses a wide array of high technologies, ranging from electronics, machinery and chemistry to materials, and therefore has far reaching impacts for a country. In the course of building the Naro Space Center, Korean companies were able to acquire valuable know-how in ultraclean, high pressure and cryogenic technologies. The first space rocket KSLV-1 named Naro cost W502.5 billion (US$1=W1,253) to build, but its economic benefits are estimated to be worth W3 trillion.

The task facing Korea is to become able to build a space launch vehicle using 100 percent of its own technologies. With the KSLV-1, Russian scientists built the core propulsion system. But Korea now plans to build another launch rocket by 2018 using its own technologies. There are also plans to launch a lunar exploration satellite in 2020 and a lunar landing vehicle in 2025. The Naro Space Center is the very starting point from which all Korea's dreams of space exploration are being realized.

Copyright (c)2009 DIGITAL CHOSUN All rights reserved.

* Related site http://www.kari.re.kr/english/

* Relate articles

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/05/11/2009051100300.html
Korea's 1st Space Rocket Named 'Naro'
:the 13th country in the world to have its own space launcher and .
May 11, 2009

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/10/20/2008102061008.html
Korean Space Launch Vehicle Unveiled
Oct. 20, 2008 09:59 KST