If this story is true, why have I not heard a peep about it from CNN or a single blog (save one) that I’ve read so far? If it’s false, where the heck did it come from? (I know nothing about the source.)
Is this some sort of sign, either in our need for troops in Iraq/Afghanistan or in a future/already made decision in policy towards North Korea? What does it mean?
I don’t think it’s a particularly big deal, according to your cite the number of troops invloved is 200 and they only appear to be being moved to another part of the country.
So it probably doesn’t mean an awful lot.
It is true, and has been in the works for some time.
There is obviously some relation between the deployments of troops to Germany and South Korea, but this is not a short-term fix to low troop levels in Iraq.
Some background here.
"some relation between deployments of troops to Germany and South Korea and the stresses now placed on our forces, but this…
I also thought it has been part of US planning for some time to reduce troop levels in South Korea due to a number of reasons:
If the north were to invade the south again then south korea could introduce conscription itself in which case the south korean military would dwarf even that of the north. North Korea has a population of 22 million with 6 million available for military service. South Korea has a population of 48 million with 14 million available for military service.
So south korea wins on numbers, it wins on technology and communications, it wins on soldier morale and treatment. It wins all round really. Not to mention the fact that they would have access to US help (covertly if not overtly)
Many South Koreans think that the presence of US troops there is a barrier to better relations with the north and would like the number to be reduced to a nominal figure.
It’s possible that the presence of US troops there antagonises the north and is a barrier to better relations between North Korea and the US. The North Korean leaders are nuttier’n a fruitcake anyway and it doesn’t take much to antagonise them. A reduction in US troops there may possibly reassure them that America is not about to launch a pre-emptive strike against them.
If North Korea really does have nukes (which I’m starting to doubt) they would be unlikely to use them in a civil war against their south korean countrymen but may be more inclined to use them if America is involved in any way. I’m starting to doubt that they have nukes because, in general, nuclear armed countries don’t tend to brag about it whereas north korea seems to threaten nuclear war against anyone and everyone almost every day. I wonder if they protest too much.
If they do have nukes and they ever used one against another country then I have a feeling that they would be completely annihiliated shortly thereafter and China wouldn’t lift a finger to help them - I reckon even China are getting fed up with these loons. Although, of course, it’s always hard to know exactly what the inscrutable Chinese think about anything.
From this article regarding S. Korea’s involvment in Iraq
(underlining mine)
So the S. Korean soldiers make about $20 a month (and note that this is roughly twice what my students told me they made while in the military a year or so ago… I guess they got a raise!).
This leads me to wonder how little the N. Korean soldiers are paid. Dang! :eek:
From my understanding, the 2nd ID will be eventually removed from South Korea, to be replaced by a Armored Cav Regiment. Also, we will preposition additional equipment there, something like 2 brigades worth.
That is part of a long-term goal of the DoD: Reduce overseas based troops, bringing more of them home, but at the same time, stockpile more gear overseas (using both warehouses and massive maritime positioning ships). It is a lot easier and cheaper to just fly out a divisions worth of troops than it is to move even one brigade by sea. Also, that is part of the reason we will start moving troops and gear from Germany to Romania and Poland. Friendlier relations, cheaper costs, and closer to where they will actually be used. Long-term stuff, though.
Is the South Korean Military that better off against the North ? The US wouldn’t be balking at joining the Ban on Mines so much if they really thought the South could fend for itself. (Korea being cited as the main reason mines were necessary for the US military.
I thought the North Korean military to be more motivated (politically of course) and aggressive... and bigger in numbers.You can throw a rock and hit Seoul from the DMZ. That means NK has two options when attacking. Massive conventional invasion through the DMZ or they flatten Seoul with artillery. Flattening the city is bad especially if you’d like to keep it. That means armour/infantry. That means mines to keep them out.
Propaganda by the North Korean government
Means nothing. If you and me fire guns at each other (and you are more aggressive) then my non-aggressive bullet will kill you just the same as your aggressive bullet will kill me.
Bullets don’t care about relative levels of aggression.
True but only because NK puts all of what little money it has into its military. It has a population of 22 million and an army of 1.1 million so one 20th of the population is in the army. An incredible statistic really.
And then they also have a secret police to take care of internal threats so that must be pretty big as well. And then there are all the people working in support industries for the military (making bullets etc). So that doesn’t leave all that many people left to work in civilian life.
In short, the NK government holds onto power by making it’s population live in a perpetual state of war-readiness. It needs an enemy. If it didn’t have an enemy then all those people working in the military or in the police would be looking for other jobs. These other jobs aren’t there so this would lead to civil discontent.
NK has two ways out of this situation - they could invade SK and take their wealth. If they were successful at this then they could probably relax their military state somewhat and hold onto power for a lot longer.
Or they could relax their military posturing anyway, get rid of their nuclear weapons and accept western help. They would need to relax their communist rules a little in order to encourage business (like China has done) but they would probably still be able to cling to power for a long time. They could then work for a peaceful reunification with the south.
If I was the NK leader I would go for the second option but then I’m not a communist megalomaniac.
I sometimes wonder whether China is behind all this. Maybe China encourages North Korea to be it’s little rottweiler. If anyone gives China any shit then China sets North Korea on them. I sometimes wonder this but in general, I don’t think so because I don’t see what China gains from the situation really. China doesn’t need a little rottweiler when it’s a huge dragon itself.
Even though North Korea is a shitty country, everyone needs allies, no matter how powerful you are.
The conventional military menace of North Korea has been overplayed ? Or has the South Korean military been given little credit ?
Personally I think the US fleet offshore is a better “guarantee” of South Korean safety than US trip wire troops. Keeping a few armor units makes more sense down south than keeping some in the border. Especially since working together with Korean speaking units might mess stuff up.
My brother is Army SF, and they laugh at the troops in the DMZ. They are refered to as “speed bumps” because they are the last thing the NKs will run over on their way to South Korea.
YMMV, of course.
Both are fair statements, I would think.
-The mechanized bits of the North Korean Army is primarily made up of either Chinese copies of older Russian stuff, or local copies of Chinese copies of older Russian stuff (Or local copies of old Russian stuff). And we all saw how well Saddam’s older Russian stuff performed. They do have some less-old stuff, like some MiG-29s, a few T-72s, etc. Not much, and that stuff isn’t exactly the latest and greatest itself.
-The South Korean Army is strong and getting stronger. Their main battle tank is the K1 series, a Korean copy of the M1 Abrams. Their airforce is fairly modern, and will become moreso as the F-15K comes online. Their new destroyers will incorporate the Aegis system. Good stuff.
Not that equipment would determine who wins, but the disparity is about as profound as two could nations have. NK does have a larger standing army, but SK has larger reserves. My money is on the South. South Korea is in more danger of becoming a regional power than of being overrun by the North, America or no. Of course, as has been mentioned, it is in SKs favor to keep strong allies (America), involved.
I’d have to agree with the assessment of Brutus. I don’t so much worry about the North winning in a potential war as I do about the damage they could inflict on the South in the process of losing a war. The only real concern that I have is that moving a token force off of the DMZ might send the wrong message to North Korea by means of removing the trip-wire to immediately involve the US in such a conflict. No doubt the US would still become involved at the opening shots, but the message it sends might be misinterpreted.
Well we all know about "trip wire" troops that give the US an excuse to interfere immediately. The issue is ... are they too few... or the NK too many ? Or are you saying the SK DMZ troops are good for nothing.
Overall I thought NK troops were seen as a bigger menace... not much political gain in Washington from making them seem bigger either.Both- too few of them, too many NKs moving too quickly.
I don’t think it’s any reflection on the SK troops in the DMZ.
Ands haven’t the NKs been patrolling their “side” of the DMZ armed, in violation of some agreement? I swear I’ve seen video of them walking around with machine guns and such, which IIRC they aren’t “allowed” to do.