Jump to content

Talk:Bridge of No Return

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armed Guard Houses

[edit]

Are they really "armed guard houses"? I thought weapons were not permitted in the JSA. Savatar 06:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The North Korean end of the bridge is outside of the JSA ([[1]]), so it is probably armed. On the other hand, the closer guard house on the picture (actually an UN checkpoint) should indeed be unarmed.--Cbb -talk- 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was stationed in Panmunjom in 2003. The only weapons allowed in the DMZ are small arms (such as a 9mm pistol). But I can tell you that the U.S. and South Korean forces do in fact bring unauthorized weapons such as machine guns, but those are kept out of sight (usually in a vehicle). I'd imagine the North Koreans do the same.--Timjbax 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are particular rules regarding armed personnel inside the JSA and the DMZ, but yes, firearms are permitted within the rules. Isaac Crumm 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I was stationed there '75-'76 and again from '77-'78. Sidearms are the only weapons allowed inside the JSA. Each side is allowed 2 armed officers and 30 enlisted personnel, per the Armistice agreement. Automatic weapons are not allowed inside the JSA at all, though on numerous occasions I saw AK-47's and a .51 cal machinegun at several of the KPA checkpoints in our half of the JSA (when it was still a neutral area). I also used to play hopscotch on the Bridge when I worked at that checkpoint (CP#3). It was funny watching the expressions on the North Korean's faces, since they had no idea what I was doing. Back in my days, the bridge was actively used by the North Koreans as there only access to the JSA. Even though their guard trucks were usually covered and the rear flap was down, we would still have to try and get counts of people entering and leaving the JSA as they zoomed past. wbfergus 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Another Day

[edit]

Though the bridge is referred to in the movie Die Another Day, what is shown is most definately not the bridge. There is no concertina wire, bunkers, or machineguns built around the bridge as portrayed in the movie. wbfergus 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a deleted sentence by an IP address. The sentence was "Also, you can easily see from the photos (below), there is an extreme lack of evergreen vegetation in the area." Okay, I did not say there wasn't any evergreen vegetation, just an extreme lack of it. Look at the picture from 1975 during the winter and you will notice there is hardly anything green, let alone evergreen vegetation. The few evergreen trees that appear to possibly be in the newer picture at the top have been planted since 1975 (actually since 1979, as I was there up until then as well, but no additional pictures). The IMDB web site (for Die Another Day)also made a similar comment about the evergreen vegetation, "Bond and Zao are swapped in the middle of a thick evergreen forest. Panmunjom, the only point along the DMZ where one can walk between North and South Korea, is grassy fields and hills."
wbfergus 11:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinality of the bridge

[edit]

The bridge actually runs east-west (with west toward PRK and east toward ROK). The article was a bit loose with its cardinal directions, such as saying that soldiers were facing "north" on the bridge, which would actually have been looking over the side of the bridge, when what was really meant was soldiers were facing toward "North Korea" to the west. I cleaned it up a little bit to reflect that. 98.232.121.163 (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was this bridge built?

[edit]

There was no mention of it in the article. Was it built after the ceasefire, or was it standing before the war? Dinkytown talk 17:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a recent tour to Panmunjom...

[edit]

I learned that the end of the bridge was destroyed by the North Koreans. Unfortunately, a tour guide's words are not authoritative but you can see it clearly in the most recent picture: rubble on the N. Korean side. So, I'm pretty curious why the UN side would offer to fix it... And sorry no, the guide did not mention any clue on when it was built... but my guess would be that it was part of the original JSA 1953, when the demarcation line wasn't strictly adhered to. It does appear to be about the same age as the old UN observation guard posts which are nearby. The North and South shared the JSA until the Axe Murder Incident in 1976. Darkpoet (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures I find, such as [2] and [3], show no destruction of the bridge itself but clearly that the river bank, including the former path across, has been walled off. Any offers to pay for repairs of the bridge obviously aim at preserving the popular symbol. It is obvious, too, of how much interest this is for the NK side. 2003:45:457F:6A31:BD2C:ED7E:1D04:9C5B (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bridge of No Return. 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:

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) 11:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final repatriation?

[edit]

The article states that "The last time the bridge was used for prisoner exchanges was in 1968, when the crew of USS Pueblo was released and ordered to cross into South Korea via the bridge." However on the page for Joint Security Area lists the following as happening in 1969:

Operation Temple Bell, December 1969 On August 17, 1969, an unarmed OH-23 observation helicopter strayed over DPRK airspace and was forced to land in North Korea. The three crew were held for ​3 1⁄2 months during negotiations between Major General A. H. Adam senior negotiator at the UN Command, and North Korean Major General Lee Choon-sun. In early December 1969 the three crew members were released and ushered over the Bridge of No Return.

Which is correct? Khardankov (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

@Jack Upland: Yesterday, Category:International bridges had 77 pages. It made it difficult to actually have any idea where said bridges were when there were so many things in the category. There was already a subcategory Category:International bridges by country so I created a few more of them when there actually was a handful of international bridges in any given country (Malaysia, China, North Korea, Argentina, Brazil). I've been adding a second category for the other country once I've created it. But now my issue is that this appears to be the only international bridge in South Korea and I don't want to risk creating such a narrow category. I don't usually mess around with categories so now I'm a bit stumped on what to do (other than revert myself). I do still think the category of international bridges in North Korea should be included but I'm unsure of getting rid of the parent one now. Can we have both? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it as it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland: Could you elaborate on why? I was considering creating another subcategory for diffusing reasons. I asked someone who does work with categories a bit more about best practices and they said you typically don't want something in a big broad category like this and a subcategory. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about categories. Could you divide it by continent and have "International bridges in Asia" etc?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that specific example but it might work as a subcategory? But then it'd also probably need to be diffused because there are a lot of international bridges in Asia more generally. Which is why I added the category for international bridges in North Korea. The thing about adding a subcategory is that it also shouldn't be in the parent category (international bridges). I think I'm just going to go with my previous plan and create a subcategory for South Korea to properly diffuse things. Am I making slightly more sense to you now? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear as mud.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I can say to make it clearer, sorry. Maybe if I linked WP:DIFFUSE again? I was able to get the category down from 77 pages to 32. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bridge_of_No_Return&oldid=1241232080"