Why don't we withdraw from South Korea?

[maddogchen]

I remember after 9/11 and the beginning of the war on terror they were talking about withdrawing from South Korea to focus our troops efforts on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 5 years later we still have 20,000 troops in South Korea. With the strain on troops in both conflicts, with the call for more troops in Afghanistan, wouldn't it serve us best to withdraw those 20,000 from South Korea and shift them to Afghanistan? With all these calls for withdrawal from Iraq, why are there no calls to withdraw the 20,000 troops now from South Korea?

I do not believe that N. Korea has the intention of invading. Dictator Kim knows it will surely be death for him if he does. He lives a rich and powerful lifestyle in the north, why would he risk it for war? And he has shown he is definitely not insane.

South Korea is now a rich, vibrant nation that can fully defend itself. It has a modern 675,000 strong military with more than enough money to develop or purchase the weapons it needs to defend itself. It has the high tech industry and manufacturing needed to build and develop quality weapons. It has a rich and vibrant economy to support its military to be able to defend itself. Why are we still there on the front lines? This country can defend itself. We don't need 20,000 troops there. We can leave some for training and have the yearly exercises there but we don't need all 20,000 sitting there for a threat that is not imminent.

With bases on Japan, we do not need South Korea for a hub for military movement throughout the Asian region. And our bases in Japan allow us to reinforce South Korea if necessary. From our bases in Japan we can use our strengths which is air power to support the South Koreans if there is war.

North and South Korean relations have been on again off again but there is no real concern of a fallout that would lead to war. Both sides seem to want a peaceful coexistence with each other.

So why are we 20,000 strong in South Korea? why don't we shift them to Afghanistan?

 

[yllus]

It's probably considered advantageous to have an enormous military force ready to rock in that particular area of the world (close to North Korea, China and Russia) under a fairly noble premise.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Our troops are a reminder that a trip wire exists.

NK has the troops and the logistics to roll into Seoul before SK can be fully mobilized.
If NK wants a peaceful outcome, then why are they shooting SK visitors and sending assignation teams/commandos into SK.

They have artillery that can reach Seoul already.

NK would love to pull a China/Hong Kong and control SK for the prosperity.
They are not ready for a German type reunification.

 

[maddogchen]

NK has the troops and logistics to roll into Seoul even with our 20,000 troops there, probably even when we had 37,000 troops there before 9/11.

Placing our troops on the border also nullifies American superiority in key areas namely air power and quality of weapons. They have a short distance to cross before engaging our troops which significantly hinders our ability to target them from the air. Their sheer numbers will match our superior firepower. You can only fire at so many targets.

If the North Koreans decide to invade I am sure they will push American and S. Korean forces back past Seoul. But they will only run into a wall of reinforcements further south like they did in the 1950s. They key to winning isn't stopping them at the border, its to hold enough of the country to reinforce it which we certainly would do. I don't think we need a trip-wire anymore. The American public understands that if N. Korea invades we will defend S. Korea.

Its also craziness on S. Korea's fault to have kept their capital so close to a potential war zone and in range of N. Korean artillery.

 

[lupi]

1- 20k trips is a fairly insignificant number in global terms.

2- it's a lasting reminder to the north that there is more at stake than just a "korean problem".

 

[TheInternet1980]

#1 reason - Korean whores

 

[ProfJohn]

There is a big mistake in your argument for removing the troops.

The idea that we can remove them from North Korea and send them to Afghanistan.

The reason the number of troops available for Iraq or Afghanistan is limited is because we have rules on how long they can serve in combat and how much time they must have between combat tours.

Troops who are in S. Korea are doing non-combat duty and thus you can't just pick them up and move them to Afghanistan due the rules I mentioned earlier. You could however pick them up and bring them back to the states and save a lot of money.

You do have a good point though, we should reduce the number of troops in S. Korea to perhaps 8000 or so. One brigade plus its support elements. We could leave extra tanks and equipment there so if there was ever a conflict we could just fly in the troops and off they would go.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
NK has the troops and logistics to roll into Seoul even with our 20,000 troops there, probably even when we had 37,000 troops there before 9/11.

Placing our troops on the border also nullifies American superiority in key areas namely air power and quality of weapons. They have a short distance to cross before engaging our troops which significantly hinders our ability to target them from the air. Their sheer numbers will match our superior firepower. You can only fire at so many targets.

If the North Koreans decide to invade I am sure they will push American and S. Korean forces back past Seoul. But they will only run into a wall of reinforcements further south like they did in the 1950s. They key to winning isn't stopping them at the border, its to hold enough of the country to reinforce it which we certainly would do. I don't think we need a trip-wire anymore. The American public understands that if N. Korea invades we will defend S. Korea.

Its also craziness on S. Korea's fault to have kept their capital so close to a potential war zone and in range of N. Korean artillery.

The US troops are there as a moral booster to the SK army.

The ability of our troops to help slow down the NK and also provide justification for air power to be activated.

If Seoul falls, the will of the SK people may fold. Remember that the majority of them have no experience with war and many have been attempting to force the SK government into granting favorable actions toward NK. Look at all thos student demonstrations over the past 10 years. Some of those students are now in political and economic power positions.

 

[dawheat]

Wouldn't it make more sense to close the bases in Japan? At least SK has a credible threat - Japan is going to be attacked by...Godzilla?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: dawheat
Wouldn't it make more sense to close the bases in Japan? At least SK has a credible threat - Japan is going to be attacked by...Godzilla?

Japan doesn't really have a military of it's own. NK or China could go and attack Japan.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The US troops are there as a moral booster to the SK army.

The ability of our troops to help slow down the NK and also provide justification for air power to be activated.

If Seoul falls, the will of the SK people may fold. Remember that the majority of them have no experience with war and many have been attempting to force the SK government into granting favorable actions toward NK. Look at all thos student demonstrations over the past 10 years. Some of those students are now in political and economic power positions.

Thats a good point, I haven't thought about morale.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The US troops are there as a moral booster to the SK army.

The ability of our troops to help slow down the NK and also provide justification for air power to be activated.

If Seoul falls, the will of the SK people may fold. Remember that the majority of them have no experience with war and many have been attempting to force the SK government into granting favorable actions toward NK. Look at all thos student demonstrations over the past 10 years. Some of those students are now in political and economic power positions.

Thats a good point, I haven't thought about morale.

Viva la France:evil:

Or from a more recent time, South VN

 

[dawheat]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: dawheat
Wouldn't it make more sense to close the bases in Japan? At least SK has a credible threat - Japan is going to be attacked by...Godzilla?

Japan doesn't really have a military of it's own. NK or China could go and attack Japan.

Japan is the 5th largest spender on military hardware. It has a substantial and modern navy and airforce with which it can defend with sigifnicant depth. With the air/sea lift capability of any other asian country, actual troop landing on Japan is highly unlikely, if not impossible. With the exceptiion of the Chinese air force, Japan can easily handle any other asian navy and airforce. From wiki:

The GSDF consists of one armored division(the 7th Infantry division with an attached Tank Group(?)), nine infantry divisions (each with three or four infantry regiments, each the size of a British infantry battalion), one airborne brigade, two combined brigades, four training brigades, one artillery brigade with two groups, two air defense brigades with three groups, one helicopter brigade with twenty-four squadrons and two anti-tank helicopter platoons.

The JMSDF has an official strength of 46,000 personnel (currently around 45,800 personnel), operating 119 major warships, including twenty submarines, fifty-three destroyers and frigates, twenty-nine mine warfare ships, nine patrol craft and nine amphibious ships (total displacement of approx. 432,000 tons)[2]. It also has 179 fixed-wing aircraft and 135 helicopters. Most of these aircraft are used in antisubmarine and mine warfare operations.

The ASDF had an authorized strength of 47,000 and maintained some 46,000 personnel and approximately 330 combat aircraft in 1992. Front-line formations include three ground-attack squadrons, nine fighter squadrons, one reconnaissance squadron and five transport squadrons

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: dawheat
Wouldn't it make more sense to close the bases in Japan? At least SK has a credible threat - Japan is going to be attacked by...Godzilla?

The role of the bases in Japan is to be a regional hub to project power into the Pacific and into Asia. As a base its much easier to defend since its on an island than S.Korea is. If you have your base in S. Korea it will be much harder to project outward in the region if your base is in the way of a million strong army invading down the Korean Peninsula.

Also if you take a look at flight charts for airline transportation you see Japan is also usually the first destination for flights from the US. And then you fly out to the rest of Asia. Reinforcement will go easier through Japan.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a big mistake in your argument for removing the troops.

The idea that we can remove them from North Korea and send them to Afghanistan.

The reason the number of troops available for Iraq or Afghanistan is limited is because we have rules on how long they can serve in combat and how much time they must have between combat tours.

Troops who are in S. Korea are doing non-combat duty and thus you can't just pick them up and move them to Afghanistan due the rules I mentioned earlier. You could however pick them up and bring them back to the states and save a lot of money.

You do have a good point though, we should reduce the number of troops in S. Korea to perhaps 8000 or so. One brigade plus its support elements. We could leave extra tanks and equipment there so if there was ever a conflict we could just fly in the troops and off they would go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat stinking thinking at the end. N. Korea has a huge tank force, if it ever crosses the DMZ, its a hop skip and a jump to the S. Korean capital. And since most of the US tanks are at the DMZ, there would be no US tanks left to man as N. Korea would bag the lot on day one and long before we could fly troops in to man already captured tanks.

20,000 or 8000 non combat trained US troops plus equipment would make little difference, what deters N. Korea is US air power that would then devastate N. Korea. And not long afterward result in the end of the N. Korean dictatorship as a larger world would condemn North Korean aggression. As long as the US keeps buying Chinese imports, China is not going to side with N. Korea.

In a longer term, China is looking for economic and political dominance of all of Asian region
and the two Korea's are just a small part of it.

 

[benzylic]

Originally posted by: dawheat

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: dawheat
Wouldn't it make more sense to close the bases in Japan? At least SK has a credible threat - Japan is going to be attacked by...Godzilla?

Japan doesn't really have a military of it's own. NK or China could go and attack Japan.

Japan is the 5th largest spender on military hardware. It has a substantial and modern navy and airforce with which it can defend with sigifnicant depth. With the air/sea lift capability of any other asian country, actual troop landing on Japan is highly unlikely, if not impossible. With the exceptiion of the Chinese air force, Japan can easily handle any other asian navy and airforce. From wiki:

The GSDF consists of one armored division(the 7th Infantry division with an attached Tank Group(?)), nine infantry divisions (each with three or four infantry regiments, each the size of a British infantry battalion), one airborne brigade, two combined brigades, four training brigades, one artillery brigade with two groups, two air defense brigades with three groups, one helicopter brigade with twenty-four squadrons and two anti-tank helicopter platoons.

The JMSDF has an official strength of 46,000 personnel (currently around 45,800 personnel), operating 119 major warships, including twenty submarines, fifty-three destroyers and frigates, twenty-nine mine warfare ships, nine patrol craft and nine amphibious ships (total displacement of approx. 432,000 tons)[2]. It also has 179 fixed-wing aircraft and 135 helicopters. Most of these aircraft are used in antisubmarine and mine warfare operations.

The ASDF had an authorized strength of 47,000 and maintained some 46,000 personnel and approximately 330 combat aircraft in 1992. Front-line formations include three ground-attack squadrons, nine fighter squadrons, one reconnaissance squadron and five transport squadrons

I'm certainly shaking in my boots

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a big mistake in your argument for removing the troops.

The idea that we can remove them from North Korea and send them to Afghanistan.

The reason the number of troops available for Iraq or Afghanistan is limited is because we have rules on how long they can serve in combat and how much time they must have between combat tours.

Troops who are in S. Korea are doing non-combat duty and thus you can't just pick them up and move them to Afghanistan due the rules I mentioned earlier. You could however pick them up and bring them back to the states and save a lot of money.

You do have a good point though, we should reduce the number of troops in S. Korea to perhaps 8000 or so. One brigade plus its support elements. We could leave extra tanks and equipment there so if there was ever a conflict we could just fly in the troops and off they would go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat stinking thinking at the end. N. Korea has a huge tank force, if it ever crosses the DMZ, its a hop skip and a jump to the S. Korean capital. And since most of the US tanks are at the DMZ, there would be no US tanks left to man as N. Korea would bag the lot on day one and long before we could fly troops in to man already captured tanks.

20,000 or 8000 non combat trained US troops plus equipment would make little difference, what deters N. Korea is US air power that would then devastate N. Korea. And not long afterward result in the end of the N. Korean dictatorship as a larger world would condemn North Korean aggression. As long as the US keeps buying Chinese imports, China is not going to side with N. Korea.

In a longer term, China is looking for economic and political dominance of all of Asian region
and the two Korea's are just a small part of it.

ummm you locate our reserve tanks and stuff a long ways away from the boarder, duh.

BTW Iran had a huge tank force too, a lot of good that did them. Air superiority is what really matters. You take control of the air and then pound the hell out of everything on the ground.

 

[Lemon law]

North Korea has no Navy to speak of to export its military power with. China is just starting to build a Modern Navy. Japan is not worried about North Korea.
Its North Korea that is caught between a China it can't attack and a South Korea it can't attack. And while the Japanese, S. Korean, and Chinese economies continues to grow, the North Korean economy is a basket case. Its more likely that one day S. Korea will absorb N. Korea in the same way that Germany absorbed East Germany.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: dawheat
Wouldn't it make more sense to close the bases in Japan? At least SK has a credible threat - Japan is going to be attacked by...Godzilla?

Japan doesn't really have a military of it's own. NK or China could go and attack Japan.

Japan's 'defense' only military is technically one of the largest and most mobile in the world. I think it's also been increasing military spending lately.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
North Korea has no Navy to speak of to export its military power with. China is just starting to build a Modern Navy. Japan is not worried about North Korea.
Its North Korea that is caught between a China it can't attack and a South Korea it can't attack. And while the Japanese, S. Korean, and Chinese economies continues to grow, the North Korean economy is a basket case. Its more likely that one day S. Korea will absorb N. Korea in the same way that Germany absorbed East Germany.

Or China absorbs North Korea. They have a lot more in common, after all.

 

[techs]

South Korea has a populaton of 49 million. North Korea a population of 23 million.
South Korea has a GDP of about a trillion dollars, 13th highest in world.
North Korea has the GDP of a hot dog vendor at a Florida Marlins game, slightly higher than the GDP of a kid who sells lemonade in Juneau, Alaska. In the winter.


Hmmm. Why are we in South Korea?

 

[Oric]

American troops are in foreign bases NOT only to protect the hosting nations BUT defend American superiority in those regions, how else can you explain dozens of "NATO" bases in European countries ?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: techs
South Korea has a populaton of 49 million. North Korea a population of 23 million.
South Korea has a GDP of about a trillion dollars, 13th highest in world.
North Korea has the GDP of a hot dog vendor at a Florida Marlins game, slightly higher than the GDP of a kid who sells lemonade in Juneau, Alaska. In the winter.


Hmmm. Why are we in South Korea?

Because SK has an economy that we need to protect and may not have the dedication to stand up aginst NK.

The population/economy means less than the military might when you are sweeping in foir the win.

The NK has more cannon fodder to through into the breach than SK.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
=snip-
Hmmm. Why are we in South Korea?

I don't know much about the military, and don't pretend to.

But given that Kim is completely nutso, unpredictable and desperate, doesn't it make sense to keep some troops there to inhibit him from trying to take Soul etc.?

Isn't it easier, cheaper and safer to prevent an invasion than combat one and clean up/rebuild afterwards?

My best guess is the ole "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

Fern

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: techs
South Korea has a populaton of 49 million. North Korea a population of 23 million.
South Korea has a GDP of about a trillion dollars, 13th highest in world.
North Korea has the GDP of a hot dog vendor at a Florida Marlins game, slightly higher than the GDP of a kid who sells lemonade in Juneau, Alaska. In the winter.


Hmmm. Why are we in South Korea?

Because SK has an economy that we need to protect and may not have the dedication to stand up aginst NK.

The population/economy means less than the military might when you are sweeping in foir the win.

The NK has more cannon fodder to through into the breach than SK.

If only we protected the economy of the U.S. as well as that of sk.....