The 21st Century Satan

[Vladimir]

Why? Vietnam and Korea waere at war with the United States, even though we had nuclear power. Argentina - United Kingdom. People know that we will most likely not use it against them, at least not when our 50 states aren't threatened.

Would that stop China from moving into the Middle East or South East Asia? They don't have nuclear weapons (for the most part) and we wouldn't be likely to use any to deter them.

What then? Massive war.

I don't think that was his original point was but his argument is proven false in a way due to Vietnam. Although somehow we classify it as a military "victory."

Sorry, I bit my tung in my last post.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think the leaders of China are aggressive and probably have little care for human life, but i think they have become like the west, its all about the money, wars are expensive and usually unpopular two things i think the Chinese goverment trys to avoid, what is there for China to gain from starting a massive war ? considering the trade that they would lose, the unpopularity of the war at home and the cost of it all.

[TevashSzat]

Why? Vietnam and Korea waere at war with the United States, even though we had nuclear power. Argentina - United Kingdom. People know that we will most likely not use it against them, at least not when our 50 states aren't threatened.

Would that stop China from moving into the Middle East or South East Asia? They don't have nuclear weapons (for the most part) and we wouldn't be likely to use any to deter them.

What then? Massive war.

Well, Vietnam and Korea still had a tentative backing from the Soviet Union. Even though the Soviets didn't help alot, a nuke from the US would have probably be met with nukes from the Soviet Union and no one wanted that.

Furthermore, China has no quarrel with SE Asia nor the Middle East. Trade is strong in both areas and there aren't strong anti-China governments there. China really has no big advantageous in invading these countries.

Seriously, just because China is growing in power and may rival the US in superpower status in the future, doesn't mean that we're all going to conquer the world. Just look at the US when it rose to the superpower status. Did it grow in international influence significantly? Yes, but the US certainely didn't start invading countries for world domination.

[Furious Mental]

A non-nuclear power can start a war with a nuclear power if it doesn't threaten the latter's vital interests. North Korea and North Vietnam correctly bet that the US would not use nuclear weapons because to do so would be to invite international condemnation and of course create a very dangerous situation with the USSR. However if two nuclear powers confront each other over anything the risk of escalation to nuclear conflict makes it not worth starting a war in the first place. This is why the US never officially fought a "war" in North Korea and North Vietnam, to declare a war would be very risky.

[Redleg]

Yes a non-nuclear power can start a war with a nuclear power if it doesn't threaten the latter's vital interests. North Korea and North Vietnam correctly bet that the US would not use nuclear weapons because to do so would be to invite international condemnation and of course create a very dangerous situation with the USSR and China. However if two nuclear powers confront each other over anything the risk of escalation to nuclear conflict makes it not worth starting a war in the first place. This is why the US never officially fought a "war" in North Korea and North Vietnam, to declare a war would be very risky.

A generalization, . One needs to delve deeper into the circumstances of the Korean conflict and how nations came involved in the fighting. A little research will find you this quote. Truman Liberary is an excellent source on United States thoughts and involvement in Korea.

Washington first learned of the attack in Korea at 9:04 Saturday night, when the UP called the state department to confirm that an attack had in fact taken place. President Truman was home in Independence, Missouri for vacation when the war began. Secretary of State Dean Acheson first notified him by phone at 9:20 Missouri time. He told Truman: "I have very serious news. The North Koreans have invaded South Korea." Truman believed from the moment he heard the news that this might be the opening round of WW III. Truman approved of getting a vote from the Security Council condemning the attack. As the word from Korea worsened, Truman hastened back to Washington. On the way, Truman reviewed his options and concluded that he would not allow another "Munich" to occur on his watch. If Hitler had been stopped in Czechoslovakia, maybe WW II would not have occurred; thus, if WW III was to be averted, the Communists must be stopped in Korea. His thinking, which was mirrored by his advisors, was that the Soviet Union was behind the attack. The United States was successful, thanks to the Soviet boycott of the Security Council, in obtaining a resolution calling for the North Korean withdrawal. Truman gave the green light first for speeding arms to South Korea and then using the Airforce to attack the North Koreans in the South. Under Acheson's direction, the US went back to the UN and had the Security Council vote on a resolution which called on member states to "furnish such assistance as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area." Thus, the US was armed with authority to act on behalf of the UN to intervene in the Korean conflict.

Now one can look into why war was not offically declared by the United States against China and North Korea but one has to take into account that the United States went through the United Nations before making anyother assumption. Now MacAurther was fired because he wanted to expand the war because he did not want it to end in a stalemate. So worries about expanding the war did play a part in the decision making process during the fighting, but it would be incorrect to assume that it was initially the major reason.

[Furious Mental]

It isn't a generalisation. It seems to me that you don't get the relationship between a UNSC Resolution and a declaration of war. The two are not mutually exclusive. If the US government had wanted it could have sought an appropriately worded UNSC Resolution and declared war accordingly, but it refrained from doing either precisely to make clear its intention not to escalate the conflict.

[Redleg]

It isn't a generalisation. It seems to me that you don't get the relationship between a UNSC Resolution and a declaration of war. The two are not mutually exclusive. If the US government had wanted it could have sought an appropriately worded UNSC Resolution and declared war accordingly, but it refrained from doing either precisely to make clear its intention not to escalate the conflict.

As clearly stated in my response of --"One needs to delve deeper into the circumstances of the Korean conflict and how nations came involved in the fighting. " and "So worries about expanding the war did play a part in the decision making process during the fighting, but it would be incorrect to assume that it was initially the major reason."

Now what was Truman's initial concern? Was it to prevent another world war, to stop the conflict before it went farther, or was he concerned about preventing the conflict from escalating? Now if one reviews the documents of the time, items that can be found in historical documents if one bothers to actually look. From Truman's memior's of that day.

On the way there I was going over in my mind the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 . . . . And then I thought about Mussolini's entrance into Ethiopia and Haile Selassie's protest to the League of Nations on that invasion. I also thought about Hitler's march into the Saar Valley, which could have been stopped by the French and the British if they had acted in unison on the subject. Then Hitler's march into Austria and his overthrow of Czechoslovakia and Poland, and it occurred to me that if the Russian totalitarian state was intending to follow in the path of the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini, they should be met head on in Korea . . . .

I was sure that they [the Russians] had trained the North Koreans in order to create a communist state in Korea as a whole and that their intention was to overthrow the Republic of Korea which had been set up by the United Nations with the Russians' approval. . . . The conclusion that I had come to was that force was the only language that the Russian dictatorship could understand. We had to meet them on that basis . . . .

President Harry S. Truman
Presidential memoirs interview, August 21, 1953
Papers of Harry S. Truman: Post-presidential Files

Doesn't sound like wanting to prevent an escalation but one of wanting the conflict to be halted in general, to stop the Soviet Union from expanding Communism. Which if one takes the time and read the comments of those involved in making US policy at the time would discover that the United States was not concerned about preventing an escalation but wanted to cause a halt to the conflict. From a copy of a memo concerning a meeting that happened in June of 1950 - preventing an escalation of war was far from the minds of those involved with policy - in fact it was geared towarded something else.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...1/elsy_5_1.htm

Then there is this statement to congress.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...2/kw_108_1.htm

Now you attempt to accuse me of not knowing the relationship between a UN Resolution and a declaration of war - I would say you don't understand why the President of the United States decided not to ask the United States Congress for a Declaration of War. Especially given that the United States does not require nor did it require in 1950 authorization from the United Nations to declare war. Nor do you realize the committment of armed force that the United States actually did to South Korea to halt the communist advance - the term police action comes into being for a specific reason which I havent said if I disagree with you concerning or not - only that your initial statement was a generalization and a false one at that. The initial response was to halt the war and take it to the Russians if necessary - when the fighting continued the desire to prevent escalation did indeed fall into the decision making process - hence the reason Truman decided to fire MacArthur was in part due to his aggresive desire to escalate the war.

To futher demonstrate the scope of your generalzation, North Korea believed something else entirely when it attack South Korea then betting that the United States wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Border conflicts began happening much earlier then the full scale attack, in fact both Korea's were preparing for war since about 1948 with North Korea being more aggresive in its preparation. So North Korea wasn't betting on no nuclear engagement by the United States it was betting on something else. So your generalization here as stated before is incorrect. Here is a historical document from the time from the United States and how they viewed the scenerio.

Intelligence Memorandum No. 302
July 8, 1950

Subject: Consequences of the Korean Incident

I. Soviet Purposes in Launching the Northern Korean Attack

A. Apart from immediate strategic advantages, the basic Soviet objectives in launching the Northern Korean attack probably were to: (1) test the strength of U.S. commitments implicit in the policy of containment of Communist expansion; and (2) gain political advantages for the further expansion of Communism in both Asia and Europe by undermining the confidence of non-Communist states in the value of U.S. support.

B. The Soviet estimate of the reaction to the North Korean attack was probably that: (1) U.N. action would be slow and cumbersome; (2) the U.S. would not intervene with its own forces; (3) South Korea would therefore collapse promptly, presenting the U.N. with a fait accompli; (4) the episode would therefore be completely localized; and (5) the fighting could be portrayed as U.S.-instigated South Korean aggression and the Northern Korean victory as a victory of Asiatic nationalism against Western colonialism.

The desire to halt the initial conflict was Truman's key concern. His secondary concern was to prevent what he deemed was an attempt by the Soviets to expand communism. As the war continued past the initial response he began to become concerned about preventing the escalation of the conflict. This is way your statement is a generalization - you left out the scope of the initial US response to the invasion of South Korea.

Now that is why the United States initially went to the United Nations to halt the war, and then used the United Nations to conduct the war. The reason he sacked MacArthur is because of the escalation of war and possible nuclear strikes by both sides if MacArthur had his way.

So I am not confused about the relationship between a United Nations resolution nor a declartion of war.

Or do you have a fundmental flaw in your ability to accurately review history?

[Furious Mental]

You seem to be taking things to be mutually exclusive when they are not. I never said that Truman did not want to halt the spread of communism, etc. The point is that from the outset these things were done in a manner that would prevent escalation of the conflict into a war with the USSR. You provide redundant evidence stating the obvious- that Truman believed North Korea was put up to it by the USSR and the USSR's proxy offensive had to be stopped. But you have no explanation as to why, that being the case, retaliating against the USSR and China was off the table from the outset. The US intelligence memorandum shows that the US government believed that USSR was wanting to "test the strength of US commitments". If you consider that this document was of some import, then you must also consider that the American response was measured so as to send what the US government considered an appropriate message to the USSR.

That is the same reason why he refused offers of help from Jiang Jie Shi. And if you read the speech you cite you will find it is hardly accusatory towards the USSR and China at all.

"ow you attempt to accuse me of not knowing the relationship between a UN Resolution and a declaration of war - I would say you don't understand why the President of the United States decided not to ask the United States Congress for a Declaration of War. Especially given that the United States does not require nor did it require in 1950 authorization from the United Nations to declare war."

Of course the US does not need authorisation from the UNSC to declare war. However, Truman could have sought it and got it and he did not, he chose at the outset to fight what he could have made an open-ended conflict with North Korea, USSR and China under a limited mandate to defend the South.

"To futher demonstrate the scope of your generalzation, North Korea believed something else entirely when it attack South Korea then betting that the United States wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Border conflicts began happening much earlier then the full scale attack, in fact both Korea's were preparing for war since about 1948 with North Korea being more aggresive in its preparation. So North Korea wasn't betting on no nuclear engagement by the United States it was betting on something else."

Of course North Korea took into account the fact that the US is a nuclear power in planning for the war. The presumption that the US would not use nuclear weapons to defend its ally and stop communist aggression was a necessary precondition of the decision to attack.

"Doesn't sound like wanting to prevent an escalation but one of wanting the conflict to be halted in general"

In case you hadn't noticed, part of halting a conflict is to stop it escalating.

[Redleg]

You seem to be taking things to be mutually exclusive when they are not. I never said that Truman did not want to halt the spread of communism, etc. The point is that from the outset these things were done in a manner that would prevent escalation of the conflict into a war with the USSR. You provide redundant evidence stating the obvious- that Truman believed North Korea was put up to it by the USSR and the USSR's proxy offensive had to be stopped. But you have no explanation as to why, that being the case, retaliating against the USSR and China was off the table from the outset. The US intelligence memorandum shows that the US government believed that USSR was wanting to "test the strength of US commitments". If you consider that this document was of some import, then you must also consider that the American response was measured so as to send what the US government considered an appropriate message to the USSR.

Some rethorical questions you can feel free to answer or not.

What forces did the United States have in South Korea on June 24, 1950?
What forces did the United States have in the Far East on June 24, 1950?
What was Truman's first reaction and thoughts upon hearing of the attack by North Korea on South Korea?
What was the United States first plan to support South Korea?
Is committing one's troops to a non-allied friendly nation's defense after it is attack an action of preventing escalation? If the your answer is yes, how does it prevent escalation? If your answer is no why is it an escalation?
Is the position, stop the attack or face the United States/United Nations forces meant to prevent escalation or is it a warning about escalation? You have answered this on partially but not enough to fully explain the difference in opinion.
Are these the actions of an adminstration that was focused on preventing an escalation of a conflict?

For instance, my answer the queston of is the position, stop the attack or face the United States/United Nations forces meant to prevent escalation or is it a warning about escalation?
This is a warning about escalation meant to stop the current conflict. The reason why is that the sole bargianing chip is one of increasing the conflict not minimizing it. Its a tactic meant to intimadate an oppenent into complying with the request to stop a course of action or face a bigger oppenent. It is a tactic that is meant to escalate the conflict if one does not heed the warning.

So in short I am stating that since the United States had no combat forces in South Korea, there were however 200 military advisors, no committment to the defense of South Korea in 1950, and that President Truman's initial reaction was to force North Korea to stop its attack or face the United States and its allies. That Truman with willing intent to escalate the conflict went to the United Nations to force the Soviet Union's hand, and to force North Korea to withdraw to the DMZ on its own or face the United Nations forces. That these actions were not geared toward the preventing the escalation - but to force the issue. I get this conclusion from reading the first hand source information in the Turman Library.

None of your responses address what Truman's initial reaction nor the initial circumstances and situation surrounding the event, you focus solely on that going to the United Nations was by itself meant to prevent escalation. To claim only this is indeed a generalization because the initial response by Truman was to get the United States involved in the fighting on the Korean Pennisula - ie an escalation of the conflict. Now as the fighting became a stalemate this was indeed the United States desire - to use the United Nations to prevent further escalation of the conflict, but it was not the initial concern.

You are seemly arguing that by going to the United Nations that the goal was to prevent escalation? Now how does one prevent escalation when one is planning to involve themselves in a conflict that one was not initially involved in because of the desire to prevent the spread of communism or allowing another world war to develop from inaction? This seems a disjointed arguement when one understands that the United States had no committment to defend South Korea from aggression in 1950.

Of course the US does not need authorisation from the UNSC to declare war. However, Truman could have sought it and got it and he did not, he chose at the outset to fight what he could have made an open-ended conflict with North Korea, USSR and China under a limited mandate to defend the South.

The subsequent invasion of North Korea by the United Nations Forces sort of defeats this postion in total. You should also read some of Truman's comments about why there was no declaration of war needed.

Of course North Korea took into account the fact that the US is a nuclear power in planning for the war. The presumption that the US would not use nuclear weapons to defend its ally and stop communist aggression was a necessary precondition of the decision to attack.

Military planners would of first asked questions along these line and then made assumptions based upon how they answered it.

What effect would the United States nuclear weapons have on our combat operations?
When and where would they most likely use nuclear weapons?

Depending on how they answered those questions they would have established their assumptions about the United States response concerning their attack. Now the CIA document alreadly quoted would have the most likely necessary preconditions and assumptions made by the North Korean's concerning their attack. Frankly knowing what I know about Nuclear Weapons, their deployment, effects, strenghs, the Korean Terrian and North Korean battle doctrine, I doubt very seriousily that the no use of nuclear weapons was a necessary precondition for the North Korean war planners. They would of considered it as a factor but the decision to attack or not attack would have been more in line with some of the conclusion listed in the CIA document.