Korea still needs U.S army

[jasonmarz930]

Leon Panetta U.S Defense Secretary attended 43th SCM in Seoul and made sure how ROK-US alliance is important. He is said to upgrade specifically the strategies about national defense & diplomacy that US-Korea summit had promised.

As soon as he arrived at Korea, he visited the ROK-US Combined Forces Command and emphasized Korea-US relations. He said that US will do the best to protect Korea and reinforce U.S army and it's power to keep the peace of Asia-Pacific area.

He also said that Korean war veterans' sacrifice and efforts made current Korea and U.S will keep joining the defense of the Korean Peninsula and Asia-Pacific. I think this meeting was meaningful to confirm their strong relationship.

SCM : ROK-US Security Consultative Meeting.

 

[18zulu]

I for one am sick of going to Korea. Let them and Japan deal with NK. They keep bowing down to them. I say enough lets go. Let the UN deal with it.

 

[CheeZe]

Actually, Japan cannot deal, militarily, with North Korea thanks to the Constitution written by SCAP after WW2 ended. The re-arming of Japan only occurred during the Korean War in the event that the Russians or Chinese pushed into S. Korea and looked to hop across the Straits of Tsushima. The JGSDF, JMSDF, and JASDF are forbidden by law to deploy overseas, though they seem to have become a little more pro-active in peacekeeping operations. [Mod Edit; The text in bold is factually wrong. See swerve's reply below.]

At this point, the US is still the bigger player with PACCOM's 7th Fleet based in Japan and able to assert naval dominance. The presence of US land, air and naval forces acts a deterrent. If US troops were removed, N. Korea invaded and a UN Mandate passed for intervention, it would look pretty bad on the US for ditching an ally and not preventing the outbreak of conflict. Then again, the US is still there because of the UN mandate in the 50s which led to a coalition of forces being deployed to Korea.

Also, having forces in Japan and Korea means that there are combat units close to China. If nothing else, it's an indirect pressure on China. Though, one could say it is debatable whether tensions increase or decrease with a US military presence close to China.

So... no matter what, unless the US abandons its anti-nuclear proliferation agenda (which won't happen because no one wants N. Korea with atomic or nuclear weapons) or unless there is a total 180 degree regime change (which probably won't happen) the US will continue to deploy troops to the region. It maintains the balance of power.

 

[surpreme]

The SKA is in good shape to handle the N. Koreans. If S. Koreans did decide to takeover N korea it can do it by itself. The US equipment and aircrafts will have to be resupply by the US and that where the problem comes. The S Koreans have a strong force that have over 50 years training by US forces. The reason why US is there is because of China.

 

[hsmod]

without US army protection, SK (South Korea) will be under Communist rule. I am not sure that SK can handle NK alone.

 

[lopez]

without US army protection, SK (South Korea) will be under Communist rule. I am not sure that SK can handle NK alone.

All SK needs for victory is to be able to hold out for 2 weeks and it wins. NK is incapable of sustaining a war.... the SK army is more than capable of defeating the NK assault.

 

[surpreme]

All SK needs for victory is to be able to hold out for 2 weeks and it wins. NK is incapable of sustaining a war.... the SK army is more than capable of defeating the NK assault.

It can hold out longer than that if US resupply them. The NK they need to get a quick victory cause they don't have a good supply unless China come to there aid highly unlikely or if the SK head up and take over NK. The NK have a backup plan if it fails the first assault. The SK can handle them its has 38,000 US troops to aid them and that's enough for that conflict.

 

[swerve]

Actually, Japan cannot deal, militarily, with North Korea thanks to the Constitution written by SCAP after WW2 ended. ... The JGSDF, JMSDF, and JASDF are forbidden by law to deploy overseas, though they seem to have become a little more pro-active in peacekeeping operations.....

They're not forbidden by law to deploy overseas. They're forbidden, under the current interpretation of the constitution, to fight wars. The interpretation does, however, allow them to fight to defend Japan, & it is possible that in the right circumstances this could be interpreted to allow Japanese forces to assist S. Korea, if it was attacked by the North.

 

[CheeZe]

Oh? Is that so? I really need to get my hands on an English translation of the constitution then. It'd be terrible for me to remain so uninformed about these legal debates on Japanese constitutional law. Do you know which way the political parties stand on the matter or if not political parties, how does it divide between the various interpretations?

If I recall correctly, their overseas deployment to Iraq from '04-06 was fairly unpopular at home, even though the mission was a reconstruction and support group.

 

[swerve]

I've linked to the official translation (on the Japanese Diet site), & the official interpretation of the sections relating to the military (on the Japanese defence ministry site), & the law & policy relating to arms exports (ministry of trade & industry) on this & a couple of other military fora. Every military forum regularly gets ill-informed posts of the "the Japanese constitution forbids aircraft carriers" or "forbids weapons exports", sort.

I can't be bothered to look up the links now, but I remember they were easy to find with Google.

Most people in Japan didn't seem to care much about the Iraq mission. The general attitude was that of my wife, i.e. "What's it got to do with us?", IIRC, but not particularly interested. I remember seeing pictures of the deployment on Japanese TV.

I think the militarist far right was not in favour, on the "Not our problem" grounds, but didn't actively oppose it..There was, however, a vocal minority who opposed it strongly: I think the same people who oppose anything to do with the military, & campaign for its abolition.

 

[Belesari]

I've linked to the official translation (on the Japanese Diet site), & the official interpretation of the sections relating to the military (on the Japanese defence ministry site), & the law & policy relating to arms exports (ministry of trade & industry) on this & a couple of other military fora. Every military forum regularly gets ill-informed posts of the "the Japanese constitution forbids aircraft carriers" or "forbids weapons exports", sort.

I can't be bothered to look up the links now, but I remember they were easy to find with Google.

Most people in Japan didn't seem to care much about the Iraq mission. The general attitude was that of my wife, i.e. "What's it got to do with us?", IIRC, but not particularly interested. I remember seeing pictures of the deployment on Japanese TV.

I think the militarist far right was not in favour, on the "Not our problem" grounds, but didn't actively oppose it..There was, however, a vocal minority who opposed it strongly: I think the same people who oppose anything to do with the military, & campaign for its abolition.

"I think the same people who oppose anything to do with the military, & campaign for its abolition."

And that has got to be the dumbest of opinions.....not that its unique to the Japanese mind you. :smash

Never understood those who think a nation can get by without a military. Some like costa rica can because for the most part they had no need and even if someone tried it a nation like the US was there.

Now ironicly that has backfired because the cartels have come so we are training them to fight them.

So even then...

 

[gazzzwp]

They will continue to need US support in the event of anything licking off with NK. The Chinese may well intervene on behalf of NK if the US forces were not nearby.

 

[surpreme]

They will continue to need US support in the event of anything licking off with NK. The Chinese may well intervene on behalf of NK if the US forces were not nearby.

Yes will need the US support like I said before they can handle the NK by themselves. The Chinese only will get into it because the US is there not the other way around.

 

[knprk8]

I dont really think we really dont neeed us tropp due to the fact that S.korwan military will over power n.korean military in Airforce,navy, firepower and technology. Also, i don even think that north korea doesnt have money to buy oil to fuel their tank and to replace part for their jets.lastly, south korea now builds one of world top tanks in the world that couldkick t-75(50% of north korean tank) ass anyday

By the way china will not support nkorea because of the fact that north korea doesnt have money nor a [Mod Edit: Text deleted. Use of profanity is not encouraged.] single natural resource ti cover the pay up

Yes will need the US support like I said before they can handle the NK by themselves. The Chinese only will get into it because the US is there not the other way around.

I dont think so because China cant get anything good out of north korea except wasting their money. Ps north korea is so poor that they cant even get oil for their tanks

[Mod Edit: Take note of these 4 points;-
(i) Read the forum rules (observing the forum rules in a requirement of posting);
(ii) 3 posts in the same thread, one after another, is post-whoring (trying to increase post count) and we don't encourage that;
(iii) this is a serious forum for the discussion of defence topics (if you want to take a piss at other countries, join another forum); and
(iv) do not delete this Mod warning (you will face administrative sactions if you delete this warning).]

 

[Ricey]

I dont think so because China cant get anything good out of north korea except wasting their money. Ps north korea is so poor that they cant even get oil for their tanks

To be honest i think that China prefer to have N.Korea there as a diversion, and a buffer zone, I can't see china liking the fact of a united Korea most likely Very friendly with the west right on their door step.

So in my opinion i think they will continue to prop up the North Koreans.

 

[sgtgunn]

I'm fairly confident that the ROK armed forces would handily defeat their NKPA counterparts. I would be an ugly couple of weeks, with enormous damage to ROK's infrastructure along the DMZ, but they would win, with or without US assitance.

The US currently has only 1 Heavy BCT (2 Combined Arms Battalions, 1 Cav Squadron, 1 Artillery Battalion (155mm SP)), 1 Combat Aviation Brigade (1 Battalion AH-64D), and 1 Fires Brigade (2 MLRS Battalions) deployed in the ROK.

While that's a lot of fire power - especially with the 2 MLRS Battalions and the AH-64D Battalion - it is still a relatively small amount of combat power when compared to the 520,000 man ROK Army.

The old relationship where the ROK provided manpower and the US provided firepower has chaged - the moderized ROKA is more the capable of providing both, though I'm sure they appreciate the availability of USAF & USN aircraft to assist the ROK AF in bombing the crap out of NKPA forces if necessary.

The US ground presence in the ROK is a tripwire. It's a physical manifestation of the US commitment to the ROK, and a absolute guarentee that if the NKPA wants to invade the ROK, they have to kill Americans in the process, which also guarentees we'll be supoorting the ROK 100% in repelling the NKPA with our air and seapower.

The war would most likely be all but over before any significant US ground re-enforcements could arrive.

Most of the interested parties in the region (ROK, USA, Japan, Russia, PRC) would probably prefer to maintain the status quo with NK as the "evil that we know". China is worried that any regime change or collapse in NK would lead to a huge refugee crisis on thier border. Unification would put a US ally, with US ground troops stationed in it, right next to China.The ROK is worried a NK collapse could economically cripple them as they try to absorb the primitive, bankrupt north - imagine the DDR, but 10 x worse.

Japan is worried by the economic implications of a NK collapse and is also worried about a unified Korea.

There are no good scenarios in dealing with NK - only less bad ones.


Adrian

 

[hunuok]

As an Australian-Korean living in Korea, an attack on the South would be absolutely devastating.

The US have maintained a sizeable force here for over 50 years, and I believe it is because of this that a second Korean War has not been started.

I have many friends who have completed their compulsory military service-from the ROK marines (they are BAD as), regular army and HQ. In general, they are told that in a full scale attack, their life expectancy is less than 20 minutes for the troops and marines on the DMZ.

The concensus is that the US military is needed to support the ROK forces.

The "draft dodgers" who have not served, are the ones who insist that ROK forces can be self sustaining, yet they are the ones who find loopholes in order to NOT serve.

A good friend of mine who was stationed on Yong-Pyong Island during the shelling last year told me the confusion from the higher echelons in making decisions.

In general, the "brass" are too busy advancing their careers and retirement funds rather than leading the troops. The usual fallout from this incident and the sinking of the Cho-Nan Destroyer was lots of finger pointing between services and a witch-hunt.

As mentioned, the bigger picture is that Russia and China needs NK as a buffer. Japan would be nervous as to having a "stronger" Korea both politically and economically. The ROK would baulk at the thought of supporting an economy that has little infrastructure or technology.

The bottom line is that NK know that an attack on the South is an attack on the US.
This is the reason that US forces must stay on the peninsula.

 

[StrategyFTW]

Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers. North Korea has the capability to fight a long term war since their economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations. Also China has proven that it is willing to go to war to ensure North Korea's Sovergienty. North Korea's battle power is centered around a "blitzkrieg" style strategy and has the capability to carry it out. Probably the chief reason the North Korean assualt in the Korean War was stopped was because we had two full divisions based in Japan along with an expiditionary force in South Korea that we used to blunt their offensive. The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small. So North Korea would undoubtably win if they went to war right now.

 

[hunuok]

The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small.

Currently, the SOFA agreement keeps US troop levels at 28 500. By all means not a small force, yet if in a full scale attack, most would be heavily committed and outnumbered like the South Korean forces.

From what I have heard from ROK soldiers and marines, under a full scale attack, ROK/US forces are expected to hold out on their own for 45 days, the time taken for reinforcements to arrive from the UN, Japan and mainland US.

Also, NK conscripts serve a total of 14 years in the military on a 2 years on-1 year off basis. This is compared to 21 months for ROK soldiers and marines.

 

[Ananda]

Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers.

Perhaps you 'underestimating' South Korea. DPRK have made improvement, but the quality of improvement the ROK has done to their Military is much more than DPRK has. How DPRK can sustain long term war alone (if China not involved), when they can't even feed their population properly ?

The thing that worries Seoul and Washington is not they can't win conventional war, but if being pushed to the corner, DPRK will resolve to dirty bombs. If that happen with ROK do not have (currently) nuclear arsenal on their own, they have to turn to US. And if the US using their tactical nuke's, will China stand still ?

Yes, DPRK Army can swarm the DMZ and perhaps can overran it, however at same time ROK Air and Sea assets also can overran the Naval and AF of DPRK and can tip the balance in the ground. After that they have no choice than go directly to Pyongyang where the Kim Jr Jr will use their dirty nuke arsenal just on spite. This is the worrying thing about DPRK I believe that Seoul and Washington have, not entirely on their conventional military which although it will be difficult, given time ROK with or without US support on the ground should have tip the balance.