North Korean Military.

[STURM]

Compared to how the U.S. is handling the situation, China has been relatively quiet and has adopted a wait and see approach. I think the statement it made as to being neutral if North Korea struck first and making clear that it will not sit idle if the U.S. stuck first and attempted regime change is a very smart move. It sends a clear signal to both the U.S. and North Korea; as well as South Korea which the Chinese of course view as a U.S. puppet.

The Chinese are also very aware that any wrong moves on the part of the U.S. might later badly backfire and effect the U.S's standing with its allies. As the U.S. has discovered; winning wars against less powerful nations is not the problem, the problem is what comes after that.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

"The recent statement that China will not allow regime change is music to the ears of the North Korean leadership and a reminder to the Americans they can't have everything their way;.."

..the statement it made as to being neutral if North Korea struck first and making clear that it will not sit idle if the U.S. stuck first and attempted regime change is a very smart move. It sends a clear signal to both the U.S. and North Korea; as well as South Korea which the Chinese of course view as a U.S. puppet. ..

Agreed! To put it in perspective, NK is a mirror image of Israel, Pakistan & India: all are armed with nukes, missiles & submarines while surrounded by hostile/not friendly states; their BMs can reach well outside Asia & ME; they withstood sanctions/embargoes & are outside of the NPT. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/images/zakaria-globe.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8yWsWA0hB...U/XrYGB3wcBXs/s1600/Shaheen+III+Range+Map.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/19/article-2132240-12AC939F000005DC-113_964x596.jpg
https://americanus.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/agni-iii_ranges.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/18/article-2131628-12A74E83000005DC-716_634x787.jpg
Israel has a big clout in the US; Pakistan so far avoided being bombed after siding with the US against the Taliban; India is the largest arms importer & its card is being played by US, Japan & Vietnam to balance/contain China. NK can't rely on any 1 since the so-called "international law" in reality is "the law of the jungle". Even Precise US Strike Would Prompt NK Retaliation
Trump’s “Fire and Fury” Wouldn’t Be the First for North Korea

And as for the Korean War, the US public has never come to terms with the atrocities our side perpetrated during it, or the scale of the loss of life. This amnesia is why Americans cannot imagine what N Korea has against us.

 

[STURM]

North Korea being a "mirror image" of Pakistan, India and Israel is I think pushing it a bit too far. Israel is a democracy and has checks and balances so on paper it will only use its nukes if the survival of Israel is at stake - never mind that no Arab country has the desire or - more importantly - the actual capability to destroy Israel. Despite this Israel still wants to maintain its nuclear monopoly (who wouldn't?) as it provides it with greater flexibility when dealing with the Arabs - it is for this reason that Israel was ready to start a war (with Saudi cooperation) and to drag the Americans into a war to stop Iran from getting nukes. With the North Koreans - who are apparently irrational and far detached from reality - the worry some hold is that they will some day wake up on the wrong side of bed and launch an ICBM at Hawaii or L.A. but why would they when their priority is regime survival?

Which begs the question; does the U.S. really want to stop North Korea because it genuinely believes that North Korea might in the future launch an unprovoked nuke attack or because it worries that letting North Korea get away with having ICBMs will be a loss of face for the U.S. (the world's only superpower being unable to impose its will on a 3rd world barely functioning and improvised country), will provide China with a ICBM equipped ally and might result in other countries doing the same?

 

[swerve]

... the DPRK .... And while their actions towards south Korea are debatably not that bad, ....

Not only did they start the Korean war by invading the south, but their behaviour in the parts of the south under their control was appalling: targeted killings of huge numbers of people selected by social class or political affiliation (they had lists), massacres wherever there was resistance, & conscription of locals into cannon fodder units for forced kamikaze-style charges into S. Korean/US/etc. machine guns, etc., with loyal troops with machine guns behind them.

 

[STURM]

U.S. forces are only there in the first place because of the first Korean War, so without their initial aggression, there likely wouldn't be tens of thousands of American troops there.

Very true but in recent years are U.S. troops still in South Korea only because of the threat posed by North Korea or are there other reasons? Assuming no war breaks out; in the coming years if the South Koreans feel confident enough to deal with North Korea on its own and they insist the Americans downscale their presence; will the Americans agree?

 

[John Fedup]

I don't know why they wouldn't considering all the worldwide missions they currently have. It's costing the US a team a ton of money for the SK deployment which could better applied somewhere else rather than in a country that has the resources and skills to defend itself.

 

[STURM]

On paper the South Korean military appears to be able to hold its on against a North Korean attack; assuming of course the conflict stays conventional and not nuclear, chemical or biological. Given the amounts of cash they spend, the training benefits they gain by training with the U.S. military and the clear technological lead they enjoy; something would be seriously wrong if the South Koreans weren't able to hold back an invasion from the North.

Whilst the U.S. presence in South Korea is mainly intended to safeguard against North Korea and reassure countries in the region that Uncle Sam is there to stay; there are probably others reasons why Uncle Sam would want to maintain its presence there; even if North Korea ceases to be a threat. Talking about military presence; what would really annoy Uncle Sam would be if China announced that it was going to base a ''peace and friendship'' contingent comprising 2-3 brigades in North Korea to reassure the jittery North Koreans that regime change will never happen [in turn the North Koreans will halt nuclear development] and to contribute to overall peace and stability on the peninsular. If the Americans complained, it would be a clear case of the American kettle calling the Chinese pot black given the Americans have a presence in Japan and South Korea.

 

[John Fedup]

China could do that but the US could position some friendship contingents of its own in Taiwan. This tit for tat would do little for either's end game.

 

[STURM]

Taiwan is a different proposition altogether because the U.S. and most of the world recognises that Taiwan is part of China. Iif the North Koreans were to "invite" a PLAN "peace and friendship" contingent in; there isn't anything others could do as North Korea - despite being undemocratic - is recognised as a sovereign state. Placing U.S. troops in Taiwan would automatically lead to war.

The point I'm trying to make is that China could make things very problematic and embarrassing for the U.S. if it wanted or was forced to. The fact that China has not been as "vocal" as the U.S. should not be misconstrued as Chinese weakness or willingness to allow the U.S. a free hand in North Korea.

 

[Toblerone]

KJU inviting chinese troops in North Korea would just be asking to suffer a ... regime change. He didn't eradicate all the chinese-affiliated generals only to invite chinese troops directly!!

Not to mention how ridiculously weak he would appear within his own party and country.

 

[STURM]

"Inviting" as in him having no say in the matter. Such a scenario at present is unlikely but nonetheless a possibility that the Chinese might consider in the future as a means of descalating things and ensuring not only do the North Koreans behave but are also protected against regime change. Doing so checkmates the Americans, provides the North Koreans with assurance and prevents them from misbehaving anymore.

 

[gazzzwp]

In today's media, South Korea are insisting that no attack on the North can take place without their permission.

Again the US is in a no win situation; dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

What a shame that the Armistice Line was not agreed another 30 miles north making Seoul outside the range of the NK artillery. Of course it would still be within reach of missiles but at least it would have made some significant difference.

 

[Ananda]

I don't know why they wouldn't considering all the worldwide missions they currently have. It's costing the US a team a ton of money for the SK deployment which could better applied somewhere else rather than in a country that has the resources and skills to defend itself.

If US pull back all their troops from South Korea..what South Korean has on US security umbrella including the nuclear umbrella still exist..? This also will bring same question to Japan..
Thus if that happen Either they decided kowtowing to China (not likely considering their proud nationalistic feeling)..or they decided to build their owned nuke arsenall..which ROK and Japan has ample technological based and capabilities to do that..

Frm that point of view..the existance of US forces both in ROK and Japan also in benefit of China, rather than facing it's two rich neighbours nuclearize themselves..

 

[John Fedup]

The question of the nuclear umbrella for Japan and SK certainly is of concern for both countries. The presence of 30,000 troops in SK should make no difference IMO. If Japan and SK feel doubtful about the US nuclear umbrella then they will develop their own. The best way for China to prevent this is to manage their dog in the north.

 

[STURM]

If Japan and SK feel doubtful about the US nuclear umbrella then they will develop their own. The best way for China to prevent this is to manage their dog in the north.

On paper maybe but in reality even if Japan and South Korea get nukes both will still require some level of assurance in the form of a U.S. military presence on their soil. Also, if the U.S. "allowed" both counties to get nukes this will set a precedent. As it is the U.S has been very selective in decking who can get nukes and who can't.

 

[STURM]

If US pull back all their troops from South Korea..what South Korean has on US security umbrella including the nuclear umbrella still exist..?

Just because the U.S. pulls out of South Korea doesn't mean that South Korea won't still be linked to the U.S. by a formal defence treaty. We also have to consider
how things might change in the future. The South Korean population might not be so receptive to the U.S. troops on their soil and might decide that tensions with the North will be greatly reduced without the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea.

With Japan its the same thing, how future generations feel about the presence of U.S. troops in Japan remains to be seen. In fact, in the coming decades there is no guarantee that America will still remain so comitted to the region to the extent it is at present.

 

[STURM]

Again the US is in a no win situation; dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

No. It's actually a sharp reminder that unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. can't do what it wants without paying heed to other countries; regardless of the fact that it's a superpower. A Korean peninsular devastated by nukes might actually be a sign of U.S. weakness rather than strength and the start of its decline as the most powerful player.

No doubt, it takes two to clap and what North Korea does next will determine how things pan out - the security aspects aside; an improvised 3rd world country defying the U.S. won't be good for U.S. pride and prestige but with Chinese cooperation it's hard to believe that there's no peaceful solution to the crisis.

 

[John Fedup]

On paper maybe but in reality even if Japan and South Korea get nukes both will still require some level of assurance in the form of a U.S. military presence on their soil. Also, if the U.S. "allowed" both counties to get nukes this will set a precedent. As it is the U.S has been very selective in decking who can get nukes and who can't.

Sometimes " boots on the ground " on an ally's soil becomes an PITA for the locals. A strong naval presence should be enough assurance.

 

[STURM]

Sometimes " boots on the ground " on an ally's soil becomes an PITA for the locals. A strong naval presence should be enough assurance.

Very true, at present the Pacific is still a U.S. lake and this is unlikely to change anytime soon. Just because treaty allies don't host U.S. troops anymore doesn't mean the U.S. can't rapidly deploy.

[Denuclearization Is Dead, Now Let’s Bury It]
http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/denuclearization-is-dead-now-lets-bury-it/

''While some on the right continue to harbor feverish fantasies of intervention and – perhaps - decisive war on the United States’ terms, the reality is quite different. Whatever windows may have existed for halfway-sensible military action on the peninsula have closed long ago; a fact that the likes of SECDEF James N. Mattis and National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster are well aware of. North Korea has been a nuclear power since at least 2009, has expanded its arsenal to up to 30 weapons, and is likely to make significant strides in the size of its stockpile in the next few years. To paraphrase Dick Cheney, if the risks of action against the DPRK far outweighed the risks of inaction during the tenure of the interventionist Clinton administration, how much larger do they loom today? If not only the Bush administration, but also the Israeli government, with its even richer tradition of military prevention, decided that the risks of decisive action against Iran far outweighed the risks of settling for an imperfect diplomatic process, will we seriously have to debate the merits of unleashing the “the fire and fury, and frankly power” of the U.S. against an actual, rather than a potential, nuclear state? ''

''What does the United States have to offer the DPRK regime in return for giving up the only security assurance that it is likely to trust in a world that it sees, with some justification, as uncompromisingly hostile to the North Korean “experiment”? Why would Kim Jong-Un let the hated “imperialists” and “pirates” snatch victory from the jaws of their abject failure to impose their will through years upon years of fruitless coercive diplomacy? Would the proud nationalists in the White House accede to such a humiliating outcome, if the roles were reversed?''

 

[Waylander]

Boots on the ground act as a tripwire to ensure the US involvement into any hot conflict on Korean soil.

With a brigade+ on the ground taking heavy casualties the US can't just walk away from a conflict in a whim. This is not the case with just USN and USAF assets in the vicinity.

The same reason the multinational NATO combat groups are stationed in the Baltics. Besides their limited military capabilities they ensure that the majority of NATO countries find themselves in heavy ground combat with their own troops once the brown stuff hits the fan. Thus ensuring that walking away from ones security alliance becomes much harder.

Many US installations in SK are in easy arty and rocket reach of NK thus practically ensuring some initial casualties while also being close enough to the DMZ to ensure at least a first row seat when encountering a NK thrust down south.