12,500 US Troops Pulling Out of South Korea

[reachy]

As part of the whole 'strategic redeployment', I don't think it's a bad idea, and is mutually beneficial for both SK and the US. For SK, it is seen as an illustration of the country's independence, and for the US, well it frees up some troops for redeployment. Besides, what can 37,500 US troops do against a 1.1 million man NK army anyway....

[dsong02]

i didnt read this.  can you post a link to the article?

[reachy]

i didnt read this.  can you post a link to the article?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3782213.stm#startcontent

[jgruber]

But Mr. Bush has told us how dangerous NK is and how we must stand up to tyranny.  Seems inconsistent to me.

[thechoson]

This is an excellent idea.  There are 37,000 troops stationed in Korea, but they are merely a tripwire.  Deterrence.  All they are there to do is to remind North Korea that if they attack, they are more than likely going to kill an American.  If this happens, the United States will retaliate.  That's all they are there for.

No, 37,000 Americans won't do *&^% in the face of a million man army designed to invade South Korea.  But the 700,000 South Korean troops trained to repel such an invasion will. 

Indeed, most military experts feel South Korea alone can repel and defeat a North Korean invasion.  I feel inclined to agree, considering the enormous firepower advantage on the South's side, along with the better training of their troops.  Really, it doesn't matter if there are 100,000 Americans there or 5,000.  They are there to make sure one of them gets killed if North Korea invades (pretty sad, but true).  If this happens, the South Korean troops will bear the initial North Korean invasion (pretty effectively) and then the United States will conduct aerial raids from Okinawa and battleship carrier groups which will pretty much pound the North Koreans to dust.

The horrible thing about all of this will be that Seoul will be taken out.  (civilian casualties could hit the 100s of thousands).  This is why the South is taking great pains not to provoke North Korea.  On the other hand, if N. Korea invades, their regime is over.  So that's the South's deterrence.

[reachy]

This is an excellent idea.  There are 37,000 troops stationed in Korea, but they are merely a tripwire.  Deterrence.  All they are there to do is to remind North Korea that if they attack, they are more than likely going to kill an American.  If this happens, the United States will retaliate.  That's all they are there for.

No, 37,000 Americans won't do *&^% in the face of a million man army designed to invade South Korea.  But the 700,000 South Korean troops trained to repel such an invasion will. 

Indeed, most military experts feel South Korea alone can repel and defeat a North Korean invasion.  I feel inclined to agree, considering the enormous firepower advantage on the South's side, along with the better training of their troops.  Really, it doesn't matter if there are 100,000 Americans there or 5,000.  They are there to make sure one of them gets killed if North Korea invades (pretty sad, but true).  If this happens, the South Korean troops will bear the initial North Korean invasion (pretty effectively) and then the United States will conduct aerial raids from Okinawa and battleship carrier groups which will pretty much pound the North Koreans to dust.

The horrible thing about all of this will be that Seoul will be taken out.  (civilian casualties could hit the 100s of thousands).  This is why the South is taking great pains not to provoke North Korea.  On the other hand, if N. Korea invades, their regime is over.  So that's the South's deterrence.

Very insightful. You're right that it's sad that Seoul would get pummeled... such a damned nice city, so many buildings that would be destroyed... Man that would be a disaster

[jgruber]

Boy do I feel like an idiot.  All I could see in this was how it makes Bush look, forgetting that there are millions of Koreans involved.

[thechoson]

This is an excellent idea.  There are 37,000 troops stationed in Korea, but they are merely a tripwire.  Deterrence.  All they are there to do is to remind North Korea that if they attack, they are more than likely going to kill an American.  If this happens, the United States will retaliate.  That's all they are there for.

No, 37,000 Americans won't do *&^% in the face of a million man army designed to invade South Korea.  But the 700,000 South Korean troops trained to repel such an invasion will. 

Indeed, most military experts feel South Korea alone can repel and defeat a North Korean invasion.  I feel inclined to agree, considering the enormous firepower advantage on the South's side, along with the better training of their troops.  Really, it doesn't matter if there are 100,000 Americans there or 5,000.  They are there to make sure one of them gets killed if North Korea invades (pretty sad, but true).  If this happens, the South Korean troops will bear the initial North Korean invasion (pretty effectively) and then the United States will conduct aerial raids from Okinawa and battleship carrier groups which will pretty much pound the North Koreans to dust.

The horrible thing about all of this will be that Seoul will be taken out.  (civilian casualties could hit the 100s of thousands).  This is why the South is taking great pains not to provoke North Korea.  On the other hand, if N. Korea invades, their regime is over.  So that's the South's deterrence.

Very insightful. You're right that it's sad that Seoul would get pummeled... such a damned nice city, so many buildings that would be destroyed... Man that would be a disaster

Yep, that is North Korea's ultimate card.  Holding a metro area of almost 20 million people hostage.  Isn't it just great that one of the biggest cities in the world happens to be about 30 miles from the most heavily militarzied border in the world?  And well within artillery range, btw. 

Unfortunately, I've done some research on this, along with talking to several professors.  If war broke out, no matter how well the Americans and SK troops do, Seoul WILL get SEVERE damage.  The only option to avoid this is an option the Americans would not consider.  That would be using tactical nuclear weapons to quickly destroy the artillery batteries along the DMZ.  The consequences of this would be too enormous for Americans to consider this plan. 

Best case scenario is this.  If N. Korean attacks, they will do several things at the same time, probably.  Obviously, Kim is committing suicide here, so (and this is hoping they DON'T have nukes) he will send all his military south, along with air raids over US military installations, large cities in Korea, and an artillery onslaught against Seoul. There might be possible missile attacks against Okinawa as well, to take out American planes there.

AS SOON AS THIS STARTS, the US and SK can do several things to minimize civilian casualties.  The American firepower must come fast and VERY STRONG, and take out the artillery battteries along the DMZ.  Along with this, SK troops must hold the North Korean troops from invading too deep (this shouldn't be too tough).  SK and USA fighter planes must take out NK planes (flying continuous sorties).  And antiaircraft fire over the larger cities of Korea must be effective (this is not that tough, considering NK flies mostly MIGs)

The goal is to take out as much NK firepower as possible in the early stages of a war.  This is the best case scenario in keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.

Sorry, I am rambling, this *&^% really fascinates me

[jgruber]

It's not surprising that this is a subject you would take a lot of interest in.

I'm curious what you think the effect of Iraq will be on a scenario like this, with such a large percentage of available American forces committed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[thechoson]

It's not surprising that this is a subject you would take a lot of interest in.

I'm curious what you think the effect of Iraq will be on a scenario like this, with such a large percentage of available American forces committed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is a concern.  US military power is already stretched thin.  WE have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now?  The good thing is we don't really need to committ a huge number of troops to Korea in the event of a war.  South Korea has about 700,000 troops, plus another one million plus in reserves.  These soldiers would bear the brunt of the fighting, with US firepower as a backup. Thankfully, the war in Iraq has boiled down to a peacekeeping operation, and aerial firepower is freed up, so that shouldn't be a problem.

BUT, SK's forces should be enough to repel a NK invasion.  For a counterinvasion and regime change, I've seen estimates of almost 500,000 US troops being needed on top of the SK troops.  This would be tough, if not impossible with what's going on in Iraq.  Hopefully, if NK invades SK, other allies will help out, including Japan, and maybe some NATO allies of the US.