Talk:Korean DMZ Conflict

Untitled

Howdy everyone. Anyways I just wanted to let every know when war breaks out soon at the DMZ line this weekend the new conflict will be called the "Second Korean War". So therefore this article will than have to be expanded.

Why is an article about an actual damn war so short, and List of minor Star Wars droids is 63k? Salad Days 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Really?

In editing various articles related to military subjects, I came across this one. Was I ever surprised! I was in South Korea as a GI from 1973-1975 and did not realize another war was going on. Not that I'm unmindful or scornful of the loss of life suffered (indeed, I've had 5 friends and fellow soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan), but this article does not fit the bill. There have been incidents along the DMZ for years -- both before and after the start/end dates of this "war". Wikipedia should drop it.--S. Rich 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, this article by its very nature gives us a POV -- implicitly saying "Pay attention" to what's going on in Korea. And I think we should, but not by creating and expanding this article. The Korean War is discussed at length and in many books. This unofficial invention should be merged into the main article. --S. Rich 06:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic = merger

Aside from the POV aspects and narrow focus of this article, it ignores other incidents in North-South relations. For example, the Northern Limit Line and Crab Wars articles relate to armed clashes, but they are not part of this KW part deuz. In another example, the North Korean abductions of South Koreans article speaks of abductions that occurred long after the Armistice. Again, my point about this article is simple: rather than promoting POV by means of this article, it should be merged (along with these other articles) into a more encyclopedic presentation of the history of South-North relations (regardless of how violent or contentious they are).--S. Rich 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read Scenes from an Unfinished War http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/bolger/bolger.asp, you will realise that between 1966 and 1969, the Korean DMZ was the scene of numerous skirmishes. How this all played into the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam and the interrelationship of the Blue House Raid, the Tet Offensive and the Pueblo Incident is a topic worthy of examination in its own right. I do agree that calling it the Second Korean War is probably overstating what took place.Mztourist (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

At last -- a reference! Thank you so very much, Mztourist, for both the comment and the article contrib. Now that this article has some meat and bone underlying the lard, can we figure out how to get it into a less POV title? After all, the CGSC uses the title "Unfinished" war, not "Second" war. Indeed, the title supports my view that the material should be incorporated into other articles. (Again, the "Second War" moniker is something that simply says "Hey, look over here! The war was fought a second time and you'all missed it!" Or perhaps the Korean War should be called The Twice Forgotten War.) --S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the Korean DMZ "War" (1966-1969) sums it up fairly accurately, but am sure someone could come up with a better name. I would liken what went on to the War of Attrition or the Israeli occupation of Lebanon though on a smaller scale.Mztourist (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, then, the material best goes into other articles -- like the nK/sK relations or KW articles, or the legacy of KW article. Another point to my argument -- in the US military, campaign streamers are given to units that fight in wars, campaign medals are given to service members. The fact that we have a Korea Defense Service Medal, NOT a campaign medal or campaign streamer for the units, tells us that a "war" was not going on. (Now it is true that individual service members have received Combat Infantryman Badges -- I have met some -- for their service in the DMZ, but that does not mean a war was going on.) Again, thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a merger into other articles, just because the existing title is inaccurate. As you will see, I have added an infobox and a listing of the various incidents that took place. Later events along the DMZ have been relatively few and far between. Other events such as the Axe-murder Incident (2 US officers killed), the Major Henderson incident (US officer gets beaten up) have their own pages, so I don't see why this page describing events in which 43 US and 299 South Korean soldiers were killed shouldn't continue as a stand-alone, properly renamed. The fact that what occurred along the DMZ from 66-69 isn't recognised in medals, awards of CIBs and streamers just shows how little known this conflict was at the time (being a sideshow to Vietnam) and why it should be more widely recognised.Mztourist (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As always, your edits are greatly appreciated. Nevertheless, I have restored the POV tag, but limited it to the title of the article. My main concern is in using the term "war". "War", in the real sense of the word, is armed conflict with very little limitation on what may be done in terms of military necessity. (Not the "war on drugs" type.) When at war, soldiers may kill the enemy (and, in many circumstances, innocent civilians) with no repercussions. They have "combatant's immunity" (a legal privilege) from criminal prosecution so long as they follow the laws of war. But in our "KWII", US and ROK forces are facing nK KPA forces and they do not kill the enemy. If they did, they could technically face prosecution by nK courts for the homicide of a nK citizen. (They would be prosecuted by US or ROK courts/court-martial if their act of killing was an unjustified, unprivileged (non-immune) homicide.) This is but one other ramification of our sloppy use of the term "war", and such sloppiness should stay out of WP. I agree that readers should have this info available to them if they want to learn about this bit of history. But in doing so, we must follow NPOV. And by describing these numerous incidents as "war" we are letting POV run the show. Another argument -- It is true that dozens of US & hundreds of ROKs have been killed. But what do we accomplish by counting? Suppose the KIA count were 9 US KIA & 99 ROK KIA. Do we still have a "war"? Or how about 1 US KIA and 9 ROK KIA? What is the magic number that determines what a "war" is? Finally, we have the argument "But people should know" about these events. See the WP:BUTITEXISTS discussion (which applies to AfD arguments). It all comes back to the same point -- while we have WP:VERIFY that the events occurred, we do not have WP:RS SCHOLARSHIP that characterizes or discusses or describes these events as a war worthy of the designation "Second Korean War". (And thanks again for your contributions!)--S. Rich (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not hung up on calling it a war, I am hung up on it remaining as a separate page (if you take the time to read the Bolger article you will also appreciate that what happened was notable and encyclopaedic and deserving of its own page). Let's agree a more suitable description of what happened and change the title (I don't know how to change page titles). Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing title is easy -- see WP:MOVE. Figuring out a title is the tough part! See WP:TITLE. (And please don't assume I haven't read it, rather WP:AGF.)--S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I do AGF, its just that the focus of most of your comments related to how there was no War and that the topic didn't deserve to be a stand-alone. Anyway I previously suggested Korean DMZ "War" (1966-1969), but as you don't agree to using war to describe what happened, what do you suggest? Conflict? Skirmishes?Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bravo -- for the move, for your retitle, and for your AGF. Thanks. May I suggest abbreviating 2nd Infantry Division as 2nd ID? At present the only other edits I'd make would be 1. de-capitalize Conflict in the title because we do not have a proper noun, 2. add nK to the categories.--S. Rich (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Korean War

Why has this article been renamed to a title that is less often (or not at all) used than the phrase "Second Korean War"? Many sources in the US Army call it a war. I propose changing the name back, renaming it wasn't necessary. I will be adding a citation and the phrase Second Korean War to the top.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Second Korean War" is a term hardly known in the Army. See History of the United States Army and its' supporting WP:RS. (NO sources in the Army describe it as a war.) To describe the continuing series of incidents, before and after the 1966-1969 time frame, as a "war" is an exaggeration at the very least. There has been recognition of the servicemen who served in Korea during this time -- by the award of the Korea Defense Service Medal -- and please note it is not a campaign medal. (And I have one.) Those soldiers who were injured by nK action received Purple Hearts. Infantrymen and Medics involved in skirmishes, etc. received Combat Infantrymen Badges & Combat Medic Badges. The renaming (e.g., downgrading from war) was done properly, after discussion, and is NPOV. For a scholar's take on the subject, see David C. Kang in International Studies Quarterly, "Ever since the first Korean war in 1950, scholars and policymakers have been predicting a second one, started by an invasion from the North. Whether seen as arising from preventive, preemptive, desperation, or simple aggressive motivations, the predominant perspective in the west sees North Korea as likely to instigate conflict. Yet for fifty years North Korea has not come close to starting a war." (Abstract; emphasis added.) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2478.4703001/abstract I submit that Kang is a far better resource than ex-GI NCOs who served in Korea, who write articles for VFW publications. (Again, I am such a person.)--S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Srich. I made the change after discussions on this talk page. Second Korean War overstates the conflict and preempts the real Second Korean War when and if that breaks out. $1LENCE D00600D if you can produce some quality references that support a renaming, we can change it, otherwise we should leave it as is. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bolger paper (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/bolger/bolger.asp) makes one parenthetical reference to "Second Korean War". "Second Korean Conflict" is used in his paper, and the incidents are described as low-intensity. Moreover, he says "Thus, the Second Korean Conflict has drifted into obscurity, a curious episode, a footnote to the Vietnam era." (http://www.kwva.org/pdfs/scen_intro.pdf Introduction, emphasis added.) The one military source regarding the conflict gives weight to the argument that "Second Korean War" is NOT a common name for the conflict, thus attempting to "promote" this war in a "commonly referred to as" status is WP:SYN and a violation of WP:UCN. ALSO, we have no WP:RS that describes who won -- thus, characterizing the events as a US/ROK victory is POV. Now that I've said my piece, I thank you both very much for your contributions -- especially for the image.--S. Rich (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the result of the conflict to a US/South Korean victory because the North Koreans failed to achieve their objective of starting an insurgency in the South or killing President Park. US/ROK aims were simply to preserve the pre-conflict status quo without escalating the conflict into a second Korean War and in this they were successful.Mztourist (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We have no real idea as to why nK undertook any of the incursions, either during the 66-69 time frame, before, or after. Perhaps they simply liked poking a stick in the eye of the ROK/US forces. Perhaps they were offering support to their communist comrades in Vietnam. Perhaps there were domestic issues at play --- e.g., having or provoking clashes along the DMZ may have been helpful propaganda. The point is that we cannot speculate as to what nK objectives were at any time. Thus, characterizing the result as a victory is WP:SYN. --S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

IP Edits - February 2011

An IP editor recently removed the citation needed tag on the phrase "Second Korean War" and changed the indefinite article "a" to "the". No explanation or reference was provided. I have reverted these edits.--S. Rich (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeframe of conflicts

We have a single source that supports this article -- the Bolger paper. And Bolger limited the time frame to 1969. Note he wrote it in 1991. Accordingly, he was well aware of the 1970 incident and the others. Attempts to expand the listing of events/clashes beyond 1969 in improper synthesis/OR. --S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of the War?

The Korean War infobox is already part of the article. The other infobox, above the KW infobox, fairly and accurately says the DMZ conflict material is part of the Division of Korea. (Another title for the infobox might be Aftermath of the Korean War.) The armistice discussions that took place during the Korean War were part of the Korean War -- should post-armistice discussions (for example the Sunshine Policy also be included in the Korean War infobox? (Certainly not!) Seeking to make the DMZ conflict and all the other incidents part of the Korean War is POV saber-rattling. --S. Rich (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Korean war never ended, there is no peace treaty there was no debellation. Warfare has occured between the two states on a regular basis since 1950, the only thing that has varied is the intensity.XavierGreen (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

XavierGreen we debated this issue ad nauseum on the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong talk page and the Korean War talk page (p7) last November/December. The consensus was that everything post the 1953 Armistice that ended the Korean War was part of an ongoing Korean Conflict. I'm not interested in arguing those same points again. I will revert any change you make to post-1953 events part of the Korean war. If necessary we can refer this to an Administrator. Mztourist (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and refer it to an administrator, there was no consensus to change. The discussion did not provide any agreement that would superseed what the status quo was at the time of fthe discussion.XavierGreen (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The contention that a war is going on, viz., those occasional, continuing, low-level skirmishes, is only what XavierGreen wants to promote. Warfare indeed. The US military stations service-member families in Korea! Schools, day-care centers, cheerleader competitions, picnics, golf matches, and more are part of the on-going family oriented activities that well established just south of the DMZ. What nation sends their babies overseas into a war zone? The Korean War is over and it ended with the Armistice. Will there ever be a peace treaty to formally "end" the war? No. The North will eventually reach the final stage of its collapse and the South will extend aid to its' northern provinces to keep swarms of dirt poor kinfolk from coming south to enjoy capitalism. Mztourist has written a good article on this (and other) subject. S/he has my support in this little edit skirmish.--S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"What nation sends their babies overseas into a war zone? " Since the dawn of warfare, families have followed soldiers into combat zones. Its nothing new, they are called camp followers. An armistice does not end a state of war, it merely is supposed to be a longer term cease-fire. The North Korean government itself has said that the war never ended and that they consider the armistace to be void. The entire North Korean state is built upon the continuation of the Korean War.XavierGreen (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And the reason you didnt recieve a combat infantryman badge is that i assume you were not involved in any firefights during your tour in Korea. CIB's were actively awarded to qualifying US soldiers who engaged in combat along the Korean border. Note that the rules recently changed to retroactively expand the scope of the award for combat along the dmz (previously there had been some rather strict requirements). Combat involving American forces occured most recently in 1994 (and those infantrymen who participated in that engagement qualify for the CIB).XavierGreen (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

XavierGreen I countered every spurious argument you made on this issue on the previous talk pages. Consensus was reached on the Korean War talk page. You must have been away for the last 7 months and now decided that you fancy some further sparring, but frankly I'm not interested. If you try to change post-53 events to being part of the Korean War I will refer it up. Mztourist (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because you present a counterpoint to an issue does not make it valid, there was no clear consensus. No agreement was reached.XavierGreen (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this tempest, which was well hashed out in other pages, really cannot be resolved by WP editors. Why? We, as editors, do not have consensus or understanding as to what "war" and "warfare" and "conflict" and "peace" etc. actually mean. But let me ask and answer some questions: Was there a Korean War? Yes. When did the fighting in the Korean War end? With the Armistice. How do we know this? By the terms of the Armistice and the overwhelming consensus of historians, scholars, and the general populace of South Korea, the US, Britain, and most other countries. (The rhetoric coming out of North Korea and their overburdening military preparedness only suggests otherwise -- the actual incidents are only occasional.) Is there a peace treaty between the "two" Koreas? No. Why not? Because both states expect to run the country once reunification takes place -- how can a country enter into a peace treaty with itself? Will there ever be a peace treaty (that will satisfy the continuing war advocates)? No -- for the same reason. Since there is no peace treaty does that mean the Korean War continues? No. Why not? As stated, the consensus outside of the WP world agrees that the war ended in 1953. What support is there for this conclusion? Besides the scholarship, there are official governmental pronouncements, actions, determinations, etc., plus the factors listed earlier -- popular opinion, etc. Is there continuing conflict between the two Korea? Most certainly. Does it amount to a "war" or "warfare" between the two sides? No -- the Armistice remains in force and in effect. (Taking a quasi-legalistic stance and saying "since there is no peace treaty the war must be continuing" ignores the legal effect of the Armistice, e.g., that the fighting has stopped. Moreover, the Armistice cannot be changed unless there is agreement to do so by all the signatories to the Armistice -- the UNC, PRC, and the KPA. So, legalistically, the Armistice (which ended the fighting) remains in effect.) Arguing that the Korean War continues is POV because it is a step on the slippery-slope. E.g., "Since there is no peace treaty (or other final resolution) the Korean War continues (de jure), and since the War continues there is no peace, and because there is no peace every hostility or incident that takes place must be part of the Korean War, and since the Korean War is continuing the Armistice did not end the fighting, and since there are continuing hostilities the Korean War continues." Such logic is sloppy thinking, which leads to sloppy, POV editing. The Korean War took place in the aftermath of WWII and in the early days of the Cold War. The DMZ Conflict had implications and impact on the Vietnam War. How do scholars look at the Korean War? As a distinct episode in history, not as a continuing War. There is a lot of analysis regarding the aftermath of the Korean War on the two Koreas and there is a lot of speculation as to what will happen when the two Koreas reunite. But a more understandable -- and neutral POV -- description of the Korean War puts an end to the war in 1953 and treats the subsequent events as a distinct set of events. (PS: My edit note did not suggest I should get a CIB or, because I was a medic, a CMB for my service in Korea. I was referring to the SSIFWTS and Combat Zone "benefits".) --S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Much of what you have stated is synthasis, i have in the past provided sources that state that the Korean War never ended and still flares up occasionally. You state that the current naval actions do not constitute warfare, yet they follow the very definition of warfare (violant conflict between two organized groups). The arimistace is a bilateral agreement between the UN and North Korea, all it takes to end the armistace is for one nation to withdraw (which the North Korean government has claimed to have done.) In regards to the issues about combat zone benefits, their issuance is not directly tied to combat areas. For example, the IRS states that US soldiers in Kosovo recieve combat pay (despite the fact that there is no ongoing conflict involving the USA there), yet the same website does not include libya as one of the combat zone pay areas (the website is listed as being current after the start of US involvement in the conflict http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=108331,00.html).XavierGreen (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS is acceptable provided it does not advance a position. Looking at War, we see Clausewitz's quote: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." If we accept that definition, does war end when the "acts of force" are not occurring? By the terms of the Armistice, it remains in force and cannot be changed or ended unless by "mutually acceptable amendments" (Article V, Paragraph 62). There are no provisions in the Armistice about withdrawal from it. There may have been rhetoric/Saber-rattling from nK media about the Armistice, but where is there any official act or pronouncement by the nK government? (Yes, I know the Media of North Korea is controlled by the government, but where did the nK media report that the Government of North Korea had issued such a pronouncement?) The fact that the US government does not provide combat zone benefits (which are quite liberal as the Kosovo example shows) supports the point that the USG considers the KW ended. The Korean War was typical Conventional warfare (not Total war) typified by Maneuver warfare, and since the Armistice the confrontations, conflicts, incidents, skirmishes, terrorist attacks, raids, infiltrations, etc. are on the other end of the spectrum.--S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I also commend editors to Thomas X. Hammes' book The Sling and The Stone where he describes the scenario that would play out if the North re-invaded the South. See pages 249-251. Sure, there would be massive damage and many deaths in the initial attack, but the KPA would quickly disband as a fighting force once the soldiers got bogged down in Seoul where they would see the vast wealth of their southern kinfolk. Seeking to prolong the old style conventional Korean War is meaningless as the strategic situation has completely changed over the last 50+ years.--S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)00:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also interesting to note this recent story from the Korean Central News Agency website "Pyongyang, August 1 (KCNA) -- Events were held in different countries between July 23 and 27 to celebrate the 58th anniversary of the Korean people's victory in the Fatherland Liberation War." Mztourist (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New Redirect Soon?

North Korea is preparing itself for what it calls the Second Korean War. Soffredo (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See the conversation above. NK says this kind of thing every few years. Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Though, the US and South Korea are also preparing. Soffredo (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The US and South Korea are always preparing, travel along the DMZ and you will constantly see helicopters and troop movements and hear artillery practice, because NK is unpredictable Mztourist (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This "Second Korean War" story has not been well reported in the media. If you read the original KCNA article[1], NK is saying the U.S. will start it: "[the U.S.] also seeks a way out of a serious economic crisis at home in unleashing the second Korean war. ... given that it has become difficult to avert the second Korean war, the DPRK strongly warns the UN Security Council not ...". Though the media reporting was encouraged by the poor title given to the article, and maybe some wild NK TV news. Basically it looks like this year's complaint about the forthcoming US-SK Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises, which NK has long regarded as the US drill for a nuclear war against NK. Rwendland (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922154209/http://cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/Bolger/bolger.asp to http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/bolger/bolger.asp#t3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131011120833/http://www.kds.re.kr/pds/102/MRDA_2010_4.pdf to http://www.kds.re.kr/pds/102/MRDA_2010_4.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20100922154209/http%3A//cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/Bolger/bolger.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)