Kim Bok-dong (L), a victim of Japan’s wartime sexual slavery, approaches a statue of her during the 1,264th “Wednesday rally” in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul on Jan. 4, 2017, a weekly protest which victims of Japan’s wartime sexual slavery and activists have held since 1992. (Yonhap)
Talk is growing in the United States of the possibility of using military strikes to take out North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities after the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, threatened he’s close to testing a long-range missile apparently capable of hitting the U.S.
Kim said in his New Year’s Day address that the communist nation has reached the final stage of preparations to test-launch an intercontinental ballistic missile. The remark was seen as a thinly veiled threat that Pyongyang is close to developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of striking the continental U.S.
The threat appears to have stoked genuine fears of security among Americans, with reporters bombarding the Defense Department with questions of what the U.S. is going to do about the North’s missile, including whether it’s going to shoot it down or even launch a preemptive strike before it’s fired.
It also prompted President-elect Donald Trump to send a tweet: “North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won’t happen!”
On Wednesday, a private intelligence analysis firm, Stratfor, even laid out a list of potential targets in North Korea, including the Yongbyon nuclear complex, home to the North’s plutonium-producing reactor and reprocessing facility.
“When considering an attack on North Korea, there are two broad categories of strikes to deliberate. The first is a minimalist strike, specifically focused on dismantling the North’s nuclear weapons program. In this scenario, the United States would engage North Korean nuclear objectives only,” Stratfor said in an analysis piece carried by MarketWatch and, titled, “How the U.S. could derail North Korea’s nuclear program by force.”
“By not launching strikes on other North Korean targets, Washington leaves the door open, if only slightly, for de-escalation if Pyongyang can be convinced that the strike is not part of a regime change operation. What benefits Pentagon planners in this scenario is that a limited strike requires less resources and preparation, enhancing the element of surprise,”
Potential targets in the minimalist strike include the Yongbyon complex, including the 5-megawatt nuclear reactor and the reprocessing plant, as well as the Pyongsan uranium mine that provides fuel for the reactor, and the Pyongsong nuclear research and development facility, known as the North’s “Silicon Valley,” Stratfor said.
“These facilities form the heart of North Korean nuclear production infrastructure. If they were destroyed or disabled, the North Korean nuclear production network would be crippled, set back years at least,” it said. [Yonhap]
You can read more at the link, but what anyone thinking of advocating for a limited strike on North Korea needs to answer is what is the response then when the Kim regime retaliates and launches a limited artillery strike on Seoul? Can you imagine what the reaction will be from the Korean public will be especially if a left-wing President is elected this year?
I think we can agree the fertility map released by the Korean government was pretty stupid because I am not sure what they expected to accomplish by it? Did they expect males to rush to these so called more fertile cities to find women to make babies with?:
Top: The Ministry of the Interior’s controversial “Birth Map,” left, that was introduced Dec. 29. A few hours after introduction, the ministry closed the website saying it will repair to reflect corrections. Above: BWave, a coalition of feminist groups online, holds a one-woman protest while wearing a red “Baby Vending Machine” to “criticize how the government sees women as mere baby makers.” The demonstration has been going on at Gangnam Station and in front of the Ministry of the Interior in central Seoul. The protester hands out a flier reading: “I’m sorry I’m not a baby vending machine, but a human being.” [CAPTURE FROM THE MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR WEBSITE,BWAVE]On Dec. 30, a person dressed as a red “Baby Vending Machine” walked back and forth in front of the Ministry of the Interior’s building in Gwanghwamun, central Seoul. When a passerby pressed a button on the box, a paper was released which read: “I’m sorry. I’m not a baby-making machine. I’m a human being.”
The 20-something woman inside the box, a member of BWave, a coalition of feminist groups online, said that the group decided to create the box to criticize how this country sees women as mere baby-making machines.
What troubled them was the “Birth Map” created on Dec. 29 by the Ministry of the Interior. The website, using shades of pink, included information on starting a family, giving birth and raising children. It all seemed helpful for the public, but the problem was that amongst the information, it also ranked towns and cities across the country by the number of women who are of childbearing age – or more bluntly, fertile.
According to the ministry, the map was created to “show what kind of services and benefits are available in 243 different local government zones across the country, to induce competition between local governments, and to inform the public with statistics regarding marriage and pregnancy.” It was a part of the government’s plan to tackle Korea’s low fertility rate.
However, they went too far.
“The country that’s always been so discrete went overboard this time and disclosed too much information,” said Kang Seung-ji, 30, who said she was furious upon seeing the map that “just shows you how this male-dominant country sees women as merely baby-making machines.” [Joong Ang Ilbo]
You can read more at the link, but the real question the Korean people need to ask themselves is if they really do need a higher birthrate in a country already overpopulated?
It looks like some high school students in South Korea will have the opportunity to vote in the next South Korean presidential election:
The voting age is likely to be lowered to 18 for the 2017 presidential election.
The New Conservative Party for Reform (NCPR), created by lawmakers who left the Saenuri Party, said Wednesday that it will seek to lower the voting age from 19 to 18 and apply it to the next election.
With all three opposition parties supporting an increase in the number of eligible voters, there is a high possibility that the Election Lw could be revised during an extraordinary session of the National Assembly in January.
If revised, those who are 18, currently high school students, will be able to vote in the presidential election, which could take place earlier than scheduled. [Korea Times]
This photo, taken on Jan. 3, 2017, shows an equestrian center in the northern Danish city of Aalborg, where Chung Yoo-ra practiced before her arrest two days earlier. Chung, the daughter of Choi Soon-sil who’s at the center of a corruption scandal that has led to South Korean President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment, is suspected of receiving favors from a Seoul college in the admissions process and on tests by leveraging her mother’s ties to the president. (Yonhap)
You would think with the millions of dollars this guy has made as a major leaguer he could at least afford his own driver or at least a taxi:
In this file photo taken on Dec. 6, 2016, Kang Jung-ho, South Korean infielder for the Pittsburgh Pirates, arrives at Gangnam Police Station in southern Seoul to face questioning over allegations he fled the scene after causing a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol earlier in the month. (Yonhap)
Seoul police said Wednesday they’re seeking to indict Pittsburgh Pirates’ infielder Kang Jung-ho on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Police have handed the case over to prosecutors after investigating Kang for leaving the scene of a DUI accident in the nation’s capital on Dec. 2.
It was Kang’s third DUI arrest, which resulted in revocation of his license.
Kang fled the scene after crashing into a guard rail on his way to his hotel in southern Seoul. In the immediate aftermath, a friend of Kang’s in the passenger seat, only identified by the surname Yoo, reported to police as the driver of the vehicle. Police analyzed the black box inside the vehicle and determined that Kang had actually been behind the wheel.
Police are also seeking indictment of Kang’s friend. They said they couldn’t clearly establish that the two had intentionally misled police or that Kang had specifically asked Yoo to offer false testimony at first.
Kang, who has two major leaguer seasons under his belt, also faced sexual assault allegations that emerged in Chicago in July.
He was named to the South Korean national team for the 2017 World Baseball Classic (WBC) scheduled for March, but will likely be dropped from the 28-man roster as early as Wednesday. [Yonhap]
It looks like this guy may be too self destructive to remain a major league baseball player considering he only hit .255 last year with 21 home runs.
I guess we will see in the coming months what President-elect Trump means when he says the North Korean’s ICMB test “won’t happen”:
President-elect Donald Trump contended Monday night that North Korea would not be able to develop a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the United States, despite its claims to the contrary, and berated China for not doing enough to help stop the rogue state’s weapons program.
Trump’s declarations on Twitter came after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said in a New Year’s address that the country had reached the “final stages” of testing its first intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the United States.
Seongnam Mayor Lee Jae-myung, one of the leading presidential hopefuls for the opposition bloc, said Tuesday that South Korea should pay less of the defense-cost sharing with the United States, clashing with calls by President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to get Washington’s allies to contribute more.
“South Korea’s defense-sharing cost should be on par with that of Japan,” Lee said during an interview with CBS Radio.
“Germany and Japan pay 18 percent and 50 percent, respectively, while South Korea shares stand at 77 percent,” he claimed.
Lee said the U.S. military presence in the country reflects Washington’s own interests and not that of South Korea. The mayor added the U.S. will suffer a great loss if it pulls its military out of South Korea. [Yonhap]
You can read more at the link, but Japan pays 74.5% of US defense costs, not 50%, while South Korea pays about 50%. Mayor Lee is either blatantly lying for votes or is completely uninformed. Either way it does not reflect positively on him. I wonder if Mayor Lee wants to return to the old days when the Korean government paid the North Koreans more money to fund their nuclear and weapons program than what they spent funding the US-ROK alliance?
UPDATE:
From the Korea Times comes further information on how Mayor Lee came up with his 77% number:
Korea and the United States hold negotiations on cost-sharing for the upkeep of 28,000 American troops every five years under the Special Measures Agreement (SMA). Seoul pays about half the cost — 944.1 billion won ($782 million) and 932 billion won in 2016 and 2015, respectively. The last SMA was made in 2014 and the next negotiations for 2019 through 2023 are likely to begin later this year, according to the foreign ministry.
However, Seongnam Mayor Lee Jae-myung, a liberal presidential hopeful, claimed Tuesday that South Korea is actually paying more than Japan and Germany, both of which have a U.S. forces presence.
According to him, Germany and Japan pay 18 percent and 50 percent of the total costs, respectively, while South Korea share stands at 77 percent.
His calculation includes indirect costs such as providing land for bases and firing ranges for free along with an exemption from taxation and benefits such as cheaper electricity and telephone charges — things not included in the SMA negotiations.
In addition, civic groups also insist that the SMA should include the nation’s support such as providing police to guard bases and troops under the Korean Augmentation to the United State Army (KATUSA) program. [Korea Times]
You can read more at the link, but if Mayor Lee wants to play the game of including costs not in the cost sharing agreement than the US side can play that game to. So how much does the use of the US military’s stealth bombers and B-52’s cost? Better yet what about the cost of using the US space based satellites and sensors in support of South Korea? What is the cost of all the US troops that would come to the peninsula in case of a crisis? I could go on and on with costs the US military can add to the cost sharing agreement that right now the ROK is not paying for.
The next cost sharing negotiations to begin this year could end up being really interesting if a committed left wing candidate like Mayor Lee is elected and insists on South Korea paying less.
