To see why this is not necessarily so, we need to understand that since 1978, the Combined Forces Command has been accountable to a joint military committee that gets its authority from both U.S. and South Korean national command authorities.The Korean units assigned to the CFC are designated by the Korean side and can be withdrawn at any time upon notification. The American CFC commander cannot refuse such notification. All he can do is point out the impact it may have on the performance of his overall mission.
According to a credible rumor, when the wartime OpCon handover was agreed to during the Roh administration, Korean leaders learned of the high costs of the technologies they would have to master, which has since diminished their eagerness to be in charge.V/R
The issue of wartime control resurfaced earlier this month after a top American official said during an interview with Yonhap News Agency that the South Korean government had requested another delay in the OPCON transition following the North Korean provocations this spring.
“When you care about a system, or an idea, more than the people who actually live in that system, that’s when things get really brutal,” Linton explains.
|Backpack Bombers a Propaganda Talehttp://www.dailynk.com/|
A unit of North Korean soldiers carrying what appeared to be representations of "nuclear backpacks" (a variation on the "briefcase bomb" concept) appeared during a military parade held on Saturday as part of North Korea’s commemoration of its “victory” in the Korean War.
However, it is thought unlikely that North Korea has the technical capacity to produce such a high-tech nuclear device.
A spokesperson for the South Korean Ministry of National Defense, Kim Min Seok told a regular briefing on the morning of the 29th, “Nuclear backpacks are an extremely small type of nuclear weapon; you need very advanced skills in order to miniaturize like that," before noting, "Experts do not believe that North Korea has reached the ability to manufacture these backpacks.”
(Continued at the link below)
Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them.David Hume
--it is a theory of war itself, war as war, and is, therefore, equally valid in describing the phenomenon of war and violence both forward and backward in time, for all time. Universal and continuingly relevant.--it is a theory of war based on the major evolution of war with Napoleon and the wars of organized states, that is, it is to be read forward to cover all wars since the changes resulting from the French Revolution and the emergence of strong nation-states. It is not just a product of its time and place but is not useful for 'pre-history'--that is BN, Before Napoleon.--it is a theory of war based on the nation-state model, thus it covers only one category of possible conflicts, its notions of friction and politics, etc., being features of human activity in general. It is limited but useful on this narrow front.--it is a theory so vague and flexible as to describe anything and thus describes nothing except what the beholder most wants to behold.
Some good news here. Many positive statements in this joint statement. I hope both the ROK and US national security practitioners can take...