27-07-2003 07:29									#1
	What are the arguments for and against US forces in Korea? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

At first, I was hesitant to feel comfortable about moving most of our troops out of Korea, but now I feel like we should leave post-haste. We argue a lot about whether or not to keep 150k troops in Iraq, but we haven't had a good discussion about our 37,000 permanent station in SK for many, many years.

There are some reasons for removing our troops from Korea:

1) SK should provide the meat for their grinder, not the US;
2) SK should bear more financial burden for its own defense, thus giving them a fuller appreciation of the trade-offs with regard to the collapse of the NK regime;
3) The US can provide a security umbrella without substantial numbers of troops;
4) A substantial portion of the population doesn't want us there, and our continued presence inflames nationalist passions against the US;
5) Our troops aren't treated well (racism, hypernationalism, etc.);
6) There would be symmetry with how China deals with its client (no Chinese troops in NK); and
7) Our interests with regard to China are adequately met with our bases in Japan.

Against this are at least the following points:

1) It looks like we are abandoning the relationship with SK;
2) We would no longer have troops on land near the border with a potential long-term strategic competitor, China;
3) We would have less of a say over how SK is defended;
4) Perhaps a majority of SKs still want us there; and
5) It is cheaper for the US to provide defense for SK than it is for SK to provide it.

Then there is the question of whether we should stay, but move our forces elsewhere--such as away from Seoul and the DMZ. This looks to be what we are doing, in part. I can't tell whether this is just cover for an actual pullout, however.

If you have anything to add or a point to expand upon or contradict, please do so and I will edit in any salient points.

Background info: The US will spend 3.5% of its economy on defense while SK spends about 2.7% of its economy on defense. SK's economy is about 25x the size of NK's and has at least twice the population.

Last edited by DanS on 27-07-2003 at 07:36

	27-07-2003 07:37									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

SK wants to pusyfoot around the NK problem, and I believed that's why we haven't attacked already...though I admit I haven't kept up w/ the latest. Once NK is up to its butt in nukes it will be too late, and we'll have them on our plate forever. Basicly a welfare state w/ a welfare government, and we have to provide for them. Clinton put it off by paying them off, but Bush is made of sterner stuff. I just hope SK does what it needs to do before too late, that is, support a full scale conventional attack.

Btw, we really need 5-10 new, additional divisions...

	27-07-2003 07:40									#3
	Suffering from ads?

5-10 new divisions? JHC!

	27-07-2003 07:42									#4
	Got spare money?

quote: At first, I was hesitant to feel comfortable about moving most of our troops out of Korea, but now I feel like we should leave post-haste.

I'm happy to see you've come around on the issue.

quote: Btw, we really need 5-10 new, additional divisions...

5 new divisions would be nice. 10 may be a little excessive.

	27-07-2003 07:44									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Where would the manpower come from?

	27-07-2003 07:46									#6
	Tired of ads?

Personally I think pulling them out would be an invitation to NK to invade.

Additionally, I think "flexible response" might be one way of dealing with the NK situation. Highly risky though.

(For those not in the know, "Flexible response" means "Blink ugly at us and we'll nuke the crap out of you.")

What I would like to see is more multinational troops stationed there - maybe not a deterrance to immediate invasion, but a definate warning that if NK does invade, it can't expect to stay long.

China will have the ultimate say on NK's fate - at least, that's my understanding of it.

	27-07-2003 07:49									#7
	Remove this text

The NK military isn't capable of conquering the South. Invading would be suicide.

	27-07-2003 07:51									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"Where would the manpower come from?"

The citizenry...? (duh)

A small power like NK with nukes and missiles could be as great a danger as the Sovs were. They don't have to be able to destroy the world 10 times over, just the US, once. How do they get such an ability? Just like they're doing, one nuke at a time and developing their missile system.

We can't depend on our oceans to protect us anymore, we have to go after them. (the rectumites of the world that is...) That requires force and the abilty to project it. With much of our army tied down, we need to raise new forces.

	27-07-2003 07:53									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The NK military isn't capable of conquering the South. Invading would be suicide.

Conquering the RoK isn't the worry. Crippling it is.

quote: (For those not in the know, "Flexible response" means "Blink ugly at us and we'll nuke the crap out of you.")

You're confusing it with massive retaliation.

	27-07-2003 07:54									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: The citizenry...? (duh)

Obviously, but 5 new divisions would be what? Something like two or three hundred thousand more troops (including support personnel)? Where will you find that many volunteers? Without getting into the debate, we can ALL agree that the draft is not politically viable, right?

	27-07-2003 07:54									#11
	Put an end to popups!

US forces in Korea at this time are little more than early warning cannon fodder.

The farthest they would go is Okinawa: defending SK is part of defending Japan, and both SK and Japan are too important to world (and our) economic well being.

	27-07-2003 07:57									#12
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Obviously, but 5 new divisions would be what?

IIRC, the current debate is centering around hether or not to expand it by 1-2 divisions not 5.

	27-07-2003 08:00									#13
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Obviously, but 5 new divisions would be what? Something like two or three hundred thousand more troops (including support personnel)? Where will you find that many volunteers? Without getting into the debate, we can ALL agree that the draft is not politically viable, right?

But it would be so easy. We've already shown that people like you will go along with it. That's why we wanted you to register, so we could draft you.

	27-07-2003 08:00									#14
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc quote: (For those not in the know, "Flexible response" means "Blink ugly at us and we'll nuke the crap out of you.") You're confusing it with massive retaliation.

Erm... no. Flexible response does not demand that NK actually launch a nuke of their own. Retaliation implies that NK had already nuked.

Get the difference?

	27-07-2003 08:09									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The economy is dumping, filling out those divisions should be easy...advertise, reduce unemployment benefits to normal levels...

	27-07-2003 08:09									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Cruddy Erm... no.

Yes, you are. Flexible Response was most definately not a "look at us funny and we'll nuke your arses" strategy.

This is more accurately what you were describing:

The term "massive retaliation", as it was understood at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s, was a policy of responding to major Soviet conventional attacks - for example, in Western Europe, should that have occurred, with a massive nuclear response, a strategic response against the Soviet Union itself.

	27-07-2003 08:09									#17
	Remove this text

US forces in Korea at this time are little more than early warning cannon fodder.

Early warning? We don't need no stinkin' early warning. SK can just phone it in.

	27-07-2003 08:10									#18
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The South Koreans have more than a powerful military to counter the North Koreans. Despite the North Koreans having greater numbers, this means nothing when they are technologically outmatched.

However I think the US should remain in Korea.

	27-07-2003 08:18									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

With regard to "flexible response", it doesn't seem like removing US troops from SK would hinder that doctrine. We still rule the sea and air.

	27-07-2003 08:20									#20
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I agree with the general sentiment of this thread, US out of Korea is a good idea.

	27-07-2003 08:33									#21
	Get a bigger avatar today!

for: nobody wants the man to possess nukes. contra: can be solved otherwise, by giving in to his economic demands

against: the US could never hold it with troops, for lack of support etc. contra: can be solved by force unification with the south

I say kick the guy's arse NOW before he gets nukes (yes, invade!), then let the South take over politically.

compensate China for not starting WWIII out of it, too

	27-07-2003 08:34									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The NK military isn't capable of conquering the South. Invading would be suicide.

The question is does Kim Jong-Il know this? He may be crazy enough to be believe he could win under those circumstances, and unpleasant things may happen to any military advisors who tell him things he doesn't want to hear. A invasion by North Korea would cause devestate South Korea and have negative economic consequences for the rest of the world. I believe this is in of itself a good argument for at least leaving some US troops in North Korea.

	27-07-2003 08:41									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

"A small power like NK with nukes and missiles could be as great a danger as the Sovs were. They don't have to be able to destroy the world 10 times over, just the US, once. How do they get such an ability? Just like they're doing, one nuke at a time and developing their missile system.

We can't depend on our oceans to protect us anymore, we have to go after them. (the rectumites of the world that is...) That requires force and the abilty to project it. With much of our army tied down, we need to raise new forces."

Valid point, but it seems it's easier to ignore than address...

	27-07-2003 08:43									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Lancer, are my points incredibly valid? please say yes.

	27-07-2003 08:56									#25
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Obviously, but 5 new divisions would be what? Something like two or three hundred thousand more troops (including support personnel)? Where will you find that many volunteers? Without getting into the debate, we can ALL agree that the draft is not politically viable, right?

You could integrate them into existing Corps structures, but the problem isn't the manpower, it's the cost. You're looking at an additional 100,000 personnel in the divisions and related independent units, and about another 25,000 or so in purely logistics functions, but the cost of outfitting them would run into 12 figures, and annual support costs would run about 15-18 billion a year, not counting basing and deployment.

	27-07-2003 08:58									#26
	Support Apolyton

Yes! Except China. They should pay the US a few billion for 'fixing' their sicko pal for them.

	27-07-2003 08:59									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

so why don't we kick his arse and force merge them with the south?

as soon as the people have t eat (and Japan's and South Korea's economies are sure strong enough to feed the north for a few months), they'll see how they'd been fooled.

and his military might be of high quantity, but it's made of paper. of his 1 million guys, like 500 000 are just workers.

and if you bribe China into shutting up, all is fine.

invade. remove. merge.

	27-07-2003 09:01									#28
	Suffering from ads?

Of course, the real issue with raising additional divisions is training time. You can't just take existing E5's and make 'em E7's, and the capacity of training organizations for all MOS's is based on present staffing level. A 40% or so augmentation of direct combat and CS MOS's would take years to put in place, and those divisions would need a minimum of a couple of years to be at similar combat proficiency to current divisions. A big problem is that you won't really have a major league and a minor league, you'll dilute experience and proficiency within the existing forces by all the personnel you transfer out to new units.

	27-07-2003 09:01									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

honestly, they've been claiming the bomb for weeks, and our experts always say "might be the first in a few months". we should just invade now, he has nothing. but is building one. kick arse!

	27-07-2003 09:03									#30
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Ect, because the South won't play.