I know we have a significant bit of our forces in the south and the dmz will we totally pull out or leave some there? I know the navy would like to be able to resupply/repair there still
and will the north require we leave or at least reduce our presence as a condition for signing ?
My understanding is that any treaty would be confined to nuclear weapons in the first instance. I can’t help wondering if there is some problem with NK’s nuclear program that is pushing them towards giving it up.
It might cause problems for nuclear powered ships though.
It has been reported that their primary test site is collapsing; and they have made their point by demonstrating some degree of capability. Hard to believe there’d be a comprehensive peace treaty any time soon, particularly one that does not give South Korea cast-iron security guarantees.
Getting into GD territory here, but I suspect that Kim is playing around with cashing in the nuke chip at a point of maximum value: (1) he has proven that he can be a threat; (2) based on the report wrt the test site condition, he may be facing a major expense getting a new site up and running; (3) the Olympics produced some good feelings with the South, planting the seed in the SK population that some degree of reunification is possible; (4) Trump is so desperate for some sort of major success that he would go for just about anything that’s not an overtly one sided deal.
Are you saying if they sign a formal peace treaty? That’s a tough one, but I’d guess that if South Korea formally asked the US to withdraw the ground forces from their territory in the wake of a formal peace treaty we’d probably do so (it would take at least a year, if not several).
Letting us have basing rights for the Navy probably wouldn’t be an issue…my guess is it’s the forces in and around the DMZ that most piss off the North Koreans. I don’t know if even the current South Korean government would formally request the US to withdraw it’s ground forces, however, or what additional incentives the North could give them to make it worth their while to make such a request. Those forces (the US ground element) are more a trip wire for South Korea’s benefit, after all…insurance that if the North attacks the US will definitely come to their aid directly. In addition, those forces might be necessary if North Korea suddenly begins to collapse, if for nothing else than humanitarian reasons.
We still have forces in Europe, after all.
Sure, but that’s at the request of the various European nations. And if South Korea wanted us to continue to station troops in their country I’m pretty sure we would as well. But if, as part of a permanent peace treaty, the current South Korean government might request we remove our troops, and in that case we would as well. I don’t think that even the current South Korean government really wants that, but it’s at least a slight possibility.
In the last few days a frequent adviser to the South Korean president was quoted in an article saying it would be ‘hard to justify’ a continued US military presences in SK after a peace treaty w/ NK. President Moon himself quickly countered that, at least partly, saying the US military presence was an issue for the US-ROK alliance and nothing directly to do with a peace treaty with NK.
Then yesterday (or so) several news outlets reported that Trump (previously, not in reaction to anything very recent) had ordered the DoD to prepare options for reducing/eliminating the US military presence in SK. Today it’s reported the WH and Dod deny that.
There’s some obvious logic to reconsidering the US military presence in SK if NK really turned into a benevolent neighbor. But even so it wouldn’t 100% determine the outcome since, though it’s a much more sensitive topic all around, that presence and US-ROK alliance are also a counterweight to China. Whether either US or ROK would want to proceed ‘as-is’ just based on that we’d have to see, but it is a factor. Just like the ROK’s highly modern military and many advanced weapons programs are obviously not all aimed at NK, some would have limited use v NK (to some degree they are also counterweights to Japan, though the US presence is not).
But basically it’s putting the cart miles in front of the horse to assume the NK threat is about to entirely disappear, whether or not the US military presence in SK should or would continue if it did disappear.
Since this requires speculation, let move it to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
The US relies on Status of Forces agreements in all countries where we have bases. If the host country declines to agree to a SOF agreement, we leave. Iraq is the most recent example. The Philippines is another. In both cases the US was willing to stay, some would say we wanted to stay, but the host country didn’t want us. We left.
I think it is highly likely that SK will continue to want the US to stay. As a possible analogy, in spite of the pressure in Okinawa, Japan wants us to stay. If the host country wants us there, we are likely to stay. Assuming Trump doesn’t demand too high a bribe to keep us there.
Considering our history of (almost) never withdrawing troops from anywhere they’ve been, and considering we now have troops in >150 nations, I wouldn’t bet on withdrawal from Korea.
Kim Jong-un had to kill his Uncle and give up on his plans to turn North Korea into a resort wonderland for Chinese tourists about a year into his leadership. Presumably, this was because the old guard feared change and felt that the strategy of holding South Korea hostage and making loads of money via criminal acts (arms manufacture, hacking, drug sales, etc.) is a proven path.
I don’t know of anything that would change the calculus between then and now. If the old guard likes that path and will most likely kill you if you refuse to follow it, I don’t know why they wouldn’t be just as stabby over the issue now as they were then. Maybe if a decade or two had passed and young Kim had had a chance to gain such trust among the other high-ups that he’d be free to dive into any risky strategy that he wanted, then I’d buy the change in tactic.
MY personal bet would be that either they think they can play Trump or they’re just playing nice while getting a nuclear site set up and have no intention of actually going ahead with anything.
I have absolutely no belief that they give a rats ass about denuclearization, whether it be in reference to the world, the Korean peninsula, or anything else.
Have we ever given up a base anywhere in the world? The USA doesn’t want to occupy other nations, we just want military bases on every square inch of the earth. And on the oceans. And in space. So we can help.
Huh? Trump is sitting on a huge pile of successes right now. This one would be a big one, agreed, but it would be just one more.
US gave up its bases in the Philippines after Mt Pinatubo blew its top and buried them both in volcanic ash.
I simply don’t buy the notion that the United States has a military presence in 150 countries, and suspect this is based on some silly definition of “Troops,” like there being a military liason officer in an embassy.
As to the issue, I do not for an instant believe North Korea is giving up nuclear weapons and can think of no rational reason they would.
Except Syria. 
Of course we have given up bases. All over Europe we gave up bases. We used to have 2 full Army Corps plus in Germany. Our forces there are a shell of what they once were. The Philippines told us to leave and we left. Saudi Arabia told us to leave and we left. We had bases all over Japan and most were given back decades ago. Even in Korea we pulled back from the DMZ and greatly reduced our presence. In Iraq we couldn’t agree to a SOFA so the troops were withdrawn and the FOBs given over to the Iraqis.