# Would South Korea survive a Trump presidency? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677 "2016-10-05T01:00:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/21 "2016-10-05T06:43:37Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I don’t. I think Trump is blustering a bit to have other alliance members pay a bit more. It is after all the other countries that border these threats. Why should the USA pay a disproportionate amount? The odd thing is the blusterbus himself has no idea how much the host countries are paying for their share, nor does he realize what “treaty obligations” and “benefits of maintaining alliances” mean. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/22 "2016-10-05T06:54:06Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > As long as someone reminds Trump which one is North and which one is South. I, for one, wouldn’t be surprised at all if Trump is unaware which country is our ally. As it is, his comments certainly don’t sound like someone who wishes to be an ally. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > [PolitiFact | Donald Trump mostly wrong that 'we get practically nothing' from South Korea for U.S. troop presence](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-mostly-wrong-we-get-practically-nothi/) > > We are there as much for our own reasons as we are there to protect South Korea. We have always been there for more than one reason. > [@](#): > > It used to be the cold war but now with a rising China, AND an aggressive Russia, South Korea’s location near the intersection between Russia, China and Japan, makes a US presence there useful to us. True. > [@](#): > > The biggest threat Trump presents to South Korea is that the South Koreans are in danger of going blind from rolling their eyes so hard. No doubt. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you think NK could defeat SK? If so, why? Of course not. North Korea can barely hold itself together. If they were to actually embark on a war economy, their government would collapse so fast it would make gods blink. Their propaganda about “being at war” and “rescinding the truce agreement” is just that, propaganda. It serves two purposes: 1-for international consumption, it shows the DPRK has military power it will use if the international community doesn’t cave and give North Korea humanitarian, economic, and food aid; and 2-for domestic consumption, it shows that the DPRK government is aware of the hell the people of North Korea live in but places the blame for that hell on outside entities. > [@boffking](#): > > Yes. Because China would probably back NK in a war. You haven’t been following the news out of the People’s Republic of China, have you? That particular government is more than a bit peeved with the DPRK for carrying out nuclear arms testing and for making statements the PRC considers “destabilizing”. The PRC’s stance regarding relations between the two countries is “stabilization”, meaning maintaining the status quo. If North Korea were to actually launch a nuclear weapon, China would not “support North Korea” nor would it sit idly by. North Korea’s government has managed to screw up its own relations with China even without the issue of nuclear arms. China would do its best, in the event of a NK-launched nuclear attack, to return the Peninsula to the afore-mentioned status quo. If that were to take sending Chinese troops in, they would do that. China has moved large numbers of troops to the NK border in the not that distant past (and I’m not talking about the 1950s) to make a point to North Korea’s goverment. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/23 "2016-10-05T07:19:34Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > It’s absolutely stunning to me how many intelligent and nuanced policies Trump has that only his followers can state for him. I have to assume he’s just too modest to state them clearly himself rather than, apparently, speaking in tongues. Outstanding post! Trump is one of the most ignorant candidates in recent memory (if not ever). He doesn’t really have any other plans besides saying what will get the voters to vote [del]for him[/del] against Clinton. Not only does he not have any plans for domestic issues, he also has no plans for international issues. > [@Velocity](#): > > South Korea would defeat North Korea, with or without the USA. America is there to widen the margin of victory and help end the war more rapidly. The South Korean military and government evidently don’t consider that to be the exact case. South Korea has requested a delay in transfer of combat command in the case of actual fighting starting again between the two Koreas. The ROK military and government consider that they need the US to be running things in the event of combat if combat were to start now, not merely be supporting SK’s military. > [@Tamerlane](#): > > I sincerely doubt it. China would maybe back NK in a _defensive_ war, if only to reduce the inevitable flood of refugees. But an offensive one? No way - that gains China nothing but headaches. South Korea is China’s third largest trade partner, just behind Japan. You’re correct there. China’s policy (“stabilization”) is more than about keeping peace on the Peninsula. The PRC currently has headaches with the trickle of refugees (whom the PRC calls economic refugees). They certainly do not want to have the massive influx that would occur with the collapse of the DPRK. > [@](#): > > SK would kick the crap out of NK’s exceedingly creaky conventional forces, though perhaps only at a very nasty cost to Seoul. And that would be a quite nasty cost, given that the population of the Seoul Capital Area (map [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sudogwon.svg)) has about one-half South Korea’s population. No matter what you think of NK’s or SK’s combat capabilities or who you think would be the ultimate winner in an all-out conflict between the two Koreas, that is quite the human cost if NK were to shell the SCA. > [@](#): > > Personally I’ve long regarded the U.S.’ slow draw-down in SK ( since the late 1980’s ) as a very sensible economizing solution. Frankly I think the U.S. force in SK could be significantly smaller - you don’t need much for a trip-wire force. If you even need one at all. Well, as has been pointed out earlier, the USFK are not just a “trip-wire”. They’re there for other reasons. One of those reasons, ISTM, is to let not only the DPRK, but other countries, know that the US is serious about defending its allies. That, mind you, is something that Trump really should remove his cranium from his posterior and attempt to learn. > [@Chronos](#): > > Without China’s backing, North Korea couldn’t possibly win a war against the South… but they could inflict a heck of a lot of damage in the process of losing. Remember, South Korea’s capital and largest city is within artillery range of the North. See above about the SCA. > [@lucid-nonsense](#): > > Why would he like to start a war that will inevitably lead to his execution or exile? Kim Jeong-Eun has no intention of starting a war. Heck, he’s likely not even the person really in charge of the country anyway. The generals in the Korean People’s Army aren’t the fools as shown in _The Interview_. Those generals are well aware of South Korea’s and the US’s capabilities and the consequences of going to actual war again. > [@Velocity](#): > > No, he wouldn’t. Bluster is par for the course, but Kim values his own survival. More to the point, the actual leadership of NK value their survival. > [@usedtobe](#): > > Look up a current map of the Koreas - you’ll see that Seoul has grown - northward, and is now along the DMZ. > I’m guessing that the SK’s are quite aware of the North’s “Massive Artillery” along the border. > > It may be a brilliant tactical move - get so close to the guns that they can’t be hit without the guns destroying each other. > If the guns are dug in (as assumed), they can’t fire horizontally - the only way to hit a close-by target would be to fire almost straight up - and any error would put their fire directly on their own positions. > I’m guessing that the SK’s also know the location of the “secret” NK tunnels. Does the North know the locations of the South’s tunnels? South Korea isn’t embarked on a take over attempt of NK like NK is of SK. While I doubt the DPRK intends to go to war again, they would be quite happy with SK"s society becoming less antagonistic towards the North’s stunts and bluster. > [@Velocity](#): > > Huh, what? Seoul being 20-30 miles is still very different from being right next to the guns. > > And NK could always just back its guns further away and dig new holes. The SCA goes al the way to the border. And backing the guns away and digging new holes (actually, they’d have to do that in the opposite order) costs money, even in North Korea, money the government simply doesn’t have. It also costs time and personnel they don’t have the werewithal to put to the task at the moment. > [@usedtobe](#): > > The fat kid would love to have _ **already won** _ a war of conquest against the South. > > Being so suicidal as to actually START such a war? He was never groomed to be Dear Leader (he was the third son) and he killed his Uncle who was supposed to do his “On Job Training”, but he is not, as well as can be ascertained, NOT suicidal. > His father pushed confrontation, but never quite pushed hard enough to trip a war. > Junior like so show off his toys instead of actually killing people. As I said above, it’s quite likely KJU isn’t the one in charge (that honor probably goes to his aunt and her supporters in the military). What the leadership of NK would dearly love is a reliable and steady stream of aid from outside of NK while leaving their internal political situation alone so the leadership can continue to live high while abusing their population. KJI, IIRC, explicitly stated that he knew it would be suicide to have an all-out conflict with the South. KJU might not have the brain cells to grasp that, but the actual leadership of the country certainly do. Also, that actual leadership, while penning and promulgating their propaganda know that propaganda is malarkey. The leadership is simply doing what’s always worked in the past. The fly in that ointment, though, is that the current President Park isn’t interested in letting that continue to work. Trump’s statements on this issue, like on any other issue, continue to reflect how ill-informed and ill-equipped to be any kind of leader Trump is. > [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > I think that assuming anything Kim Jong Un does is predicated on rationality is a mistake. I doubt very much that he has any but the most tenuous grasp of reality. The DPRK leadership is certainly evil, but that does not mean they are not rational. They are doing what’s worked before because they’re used to it working and they need it to work again (still?). > [@](#): > > I do find it interesting that recent apparent successes in NK’s missile program align with China’s apparent support for some level of sanctions. China has always been a huge sticking point with enforcement. I can’t imagine NK having nuclear weapons with any reach at all is in Chinese interest either. Perhaps if Kim Jong Un doesn’t start playing ball, he’ll have a sudden stroke and find himself replaced with his sister. I think he’ll find himself replaced as figure-head with his aunt. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > China would get involved, but the US would not? Pffft. Trump might be an idiot, but he hates losing. A SK loss would be a US loss. Yep. But, one may hope, Trump will lose the election before he manages to have a chance to lose a fighting war. > [@sarahdonahue](#): > > even without the U.S. helping South Korea. > > Everybody except Kim Jong knows that. Even KJU knows the DPRK will lose. The DPRK leadership’s position isn’t “Let’s go fight” anyway; it’s “Please give us tons of cash/food/aid/technical assistance so we don’t _have to_ go ballistic on you guys”. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/24 "2016-10-05T13:59:55Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I don’t. I think Trump is blustering a bit to have other alliance members pay a bit more. It is after all the other countries that border these threats. Why should the USA pay a disproportionate amount? If you are of the belief that South Korea does not pay an appropriate amount for its own defense you are simply not acquainted with the facts. I cannot believe I have to point out these facts, but 1. If there were to be war with North Korea, quite obviously South Korea would pay the highest price, by orders of magnitude. Defence spending is great. Blood and rubble are the true costs of war. 2. South Korea has an large and powerful armed forces, one of the best in the world. They do not cheap out when it comes to national defense. ---
**Author:** ![journeyman\_southpaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5e9695/32.png) [@journeyman\_southpaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/journeyman_southpaw)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/25 "2016-10-05T23:19:44Z")
Not to mention that South Korean men must serve two years of compulsory military service. There are all kinds of negative economic repercussions that flow from that, when when all of a country’s men miss out on what would be two prime income earning years. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/26 "2016-10-05T23:40:00Z")
Trump’s ineligible to run under article 67 (4) of the [Constitution on South Korea.](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_South_Korea#SECTION_1._The_President) so our South Korean friends can sleep soundly until Teh Donald starts the naturalization process required to become a South Korean citizen. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2016, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/27 "2016-10-05T23:51:13Z")
Trump and KJU would have much to discuss in the “coiffure department”. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/28 "2016-10-06T00:47:39Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Trump seemed like he was really not interested in defending South Korea. What is the exact Trump quote that makes you think he wouldn’t defend them if they were attacked? > [@usedtobe](#): > > Junior like so show off his toys instead of actually killing people. I assume you’re talking about killing South Koreans in a war, because he’s had no problem executing quite a few people. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/29 "2016-10-06T01:12:30Z")
Good God, do I want to see the North Koreans insult Donald Trump now. The 3am twitter storm outa El Trumpo would be magnificent. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RenaissanceMan203](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/94ad74/32.png) [@RenaissanceMan203](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RenaissanceMan203)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/30 "2016-10-11T00:23:41Z")
The United States military is in about of 150 of the 196 countries on Earth. We’ve been in Korea for 50 years. We’ve been in Japan 70 years. It’s time for them to grow up. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/31 "2016-10-11T05:03:53Z")
> [@RenaissanceMan203](#): > > The United States military is in about of 150 of the 196 countries on Earth. We’ve been in Korea for 50 years. We’ve been in Japan 70 years. It’s time for them to grow up. Care to explain your commentary? ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/32 "2016-10-11T05:39:28Z")
Meanwhile, back at “Snicker at DPRK’s Military”: The military gets first shot at food. Hence, lots of people want to be Military. Still, even soldiers go hungry. Notice the coats of the military uniform - the shoulders are padded, and epaulets are everywhere. For giggles: note the size difference between the padded shoulders and the belts. They remind me of some insect with huge thorax and tiny abdomens. Hard to fake fear while one of these poor souls is carrying a rifle obsolete 40+ years ago. ---
**Author:** ![ganthet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de0a6/32.png) [@ganthet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ganthet)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/33 "2016-10-11T06:25:19Z")
> [@RenaissanceMan203](#): > > The United States military is in about of 150 of the 196 countries on Earth. We’ve been in Korea for 50 years. We’ve been in Japan 70 years. It’s time for them to grow up. There are also Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in NORAD in Colorado. Should the U.S. grow up and kick them out? Having military personnel stationed in another country has nothing to do with whether a country is “grown up,” whatever the hell that even means. The U.S. has airmen stationed in the UK at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath. Is the UK not a grown up enough country for your tastes? Having U.S. forces stationed in Japan and Korea in particular for so long has helped keep a full-blown war breaking out in that particular area since the Korean War ended. When North Korea finally falls or implodes will be the time to significantly reassess the utility of stationing so many U.S. personnel in Korea and Japan. And actually, U.S. forces have been in Korea and Japan for the same amount of time (1945), albeit in vastly differing numbers over the years. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/34 "2016-10-11T07:08:32Z")
SK has paid the US between $700-900 million _per year_ during the 2010s. It’s far from peanuts. My guess is that were Trump to become pres, he’d simply claim he’s negotiated a great deal with SK (Oh such a beautiful deal), where they’ll pay us _hundreds of millions of dollars_ to stay. And then obviously ignore the liberal media conspiracy when they point out SK was already paying that. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/35 "2016-10-11T11:46:36Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > Meanwhile, back at “Snicker at DPRK’s Military”: > > The military gets first shot at food. > Hence, lots of people want to be Military. > > Still, even soldiers go hungry. > > Notice the coats of the military uniform - the shoulders are padded, and epaulets are everywhere. > > For giggles: note the size difference between the padded shoulders and the belts. > > They remind me of some insect with huge thorax and tiny abdomens. > > Hard to fake fear while one of these poor souls is carrying a rifle obsolete 40+ years ago. Want isn’t the issue; NK males are supposed to serve a mandatory ten years in the military. Many bribe their way out of it, though. Also, the rifle may not be modern, but it works. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/36 "2016-10-11T14:28:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > [PolitiFact | Donald Trump mostly wrong that 'we get practically nothing' from South Korea for U.S. troop presence](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-mostly-wrong-we-get-practically-nothi/) From the link: > [@](#): > > "It’s hard to argue that more than $800 million annually is ‘peanuts’ or ‘next to nothing,’ " said Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University. To which Trump replied, ‘Eight hundred million? Hell, I’ve lost more than that in one year!’ ---
**Author:** ![RenaissanceMan203](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/94ad74/32.png) [@RenaissanceMan203](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RenaissanceMan203)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/37 "2016-10-12T03:51:12Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Care to explain your commentary? The United States military forces should be reserved for the primary defense of the United States, not other countries. They are needed here. The border patrol is essentially useless in stopping the foreign invasion of the United States. Defending other countries, particularly those that don’t really even like us is a needless money and manpower losing proposition. Half of all spending is on the military. We are 19 trillion dollars in debt, which is mathematically impossible to ever escape from. You don’t spend your way out of debt. > [@ganthet](#): > > There are also Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in NORAD in Colorado. Should the U.S. grow up and kick them out? Yes, unless there is some benefit to having them here. Such as them providing free labor in exchange for our defense systems covering their territory. They are next door and we share a common background and culture. They are not half a world away and hate our guts. > [@ganthet](#): > > Having military personnel stationed in another country has nothing to do with whether a country is “grown up,” whatever the hell that even means. The U.S. has airmen stationed in the UK at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath. Is the UK not a grown up enough country for your tastes? Having U.S. forces stationed in Japan and Korea in particular for so long has helped keep a full-blown war breaking out in that particular area since the Korean War ended. When North Korea finally falls or implodes will be the time to significantly reassess the utility of stationing so many U.S. personnel in Korea and Japan. > > And actually, U.S. forces have been in Korea and Japan for the same amount of time (1945), albeit in vastly differing numbers over the years. There is no valid purpose in having the United States military in 90%+ of every country in the world. We are not at war, and haven’t been since 1945. No, they should not be in the UK as there is no purpose in being there since we are not fighting a war of defense there. It’s long past time for South Korea and Japan to handle their own regional problems. Of the two, the only legitimate place for the United States military to have been was Japan given that we conquered them in a defensive war. And 70 years later, they don’t need daddy to hold their slapped hand any longer. When or if North Korea falls is really none of our concern as they are not a realistic danger to us. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/38 "2016-10-12T05:51:52Z")
> [@RenaissanceMan203](#): > > The United States military forces should be reserved for the primary defense of the United States, not other countries. They are needed here. The border patrol is essentially useless in stopping the foreign invasion of the United States. Defending other countries, particularly those that don’t really even like us is a needless money and manpower losing proposition. As pointed out several times now, _other countries pay to host_ US soldiers. If this still leaves the US out of pocket, and/or needing to pull soldiers from vital border patrol work, that has yet to be shown here. Secondly it’s disputable whether the US and other industrialized countries should get involved in foreign conflicts. I happen to think they should; in some cases relatively small interventions can prevent something like the current Syrian clusterfuck happening. It’s a shame that the _We’ll just make things worse!_ argument now always “wins”, regardless of how things turn out. > [@](#): > > Half of all spending is on the military. We are 19 trillion dollars in debt, which is mathematically impossible to ever escape from. You don’t spend your way out of debt. Soldiers hosted in countries such as South Korea and Japan are paid to be there and are largely irrelevant to the debt. If you move the soldiers back to the US, as you were saying earlier, then that’s tens of thousands on the federal payroll with no foreign reimbursement any more. If you’re saying cut the military, then that’s tens of thousands more unemployed. Neither looks very helpful for the debt. > [@](#): > > We are not at war, and haven’t been since 1945. Somewhat besides the point, since there are certainly threats to the US, and US interests (e.g. trade routes), even if they are not the traditional “state actor making a formal declaration of war”. Retreating within our borders is not a serious option. > [@](#): > > When or if North Korea falls is really none of our concern as they are not a realistic danger to us. They are currently working on submarine-based missile-launching capability, and already can make nuclear missiles. But, yeah…let’s continue to scoff at NK, it’s not as though we’ve underestimated the progress they would make before. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/39 "2016-10-12T06:03:48Z")
> [@RenaissanceMan203](#): > > The border patrol is essentially useless in stopping the foreign invasion of the United States. Foreign invasion of the United States? What? There was that movie back in the 80’s that I think there was a crappy remake of recently (in which North Korea was the bad guys!) but an actual foreign invasion going on right now? I have to check the headlines… I don’t see anything. There’s a crazy man trying to destroy the United States from within and he’s got something foreign perched on top of his head but that hardly constitutes an invasion. Oh wait, you must be talking about Mexicans! That indentured servant class of the US that does all the crop-picking and toilet cleaning that Real Americans are too damn good for. That invasion, the one that keeps your economy afloat and your lawns trimmed. You want to take front-line combat units and their associated tanks, artillery, fighter jets, bombers, cruise missiles, submarines, carrier groups, commandos, landmines, et cetera and deploy them on the border of Mexico? Nevermind that this would actually be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act. My question is what are you going to have these troops do? All those things I listed above are weapons of war. They are designed to cause industrial scale death to human beings. They are not negotiating tools or deterrents. They are society’s finest instruments of large-scale murder. So lay it all out for us: how many Mexicans do you want to murder? Throw a few tactical nukes in there and you could probably kill them all. But you couldn’t stop there because people from Guatemala and Honduras and all those other little countries that are even shittier and more desperate than Mexico would walk across the blackened glass that remained and would crawl through the barbed wire and minefields and patrols and they’d still try to set up shop in the US because there’d be a whole bunch of job opportunities! That is of course assuming your genocide covers both sides of the border which it would pretty much have to. So you’d have to extend the genocide all the way down to the Panama canal and just get rid of Central America altogether. And then you’re all set. No more Mexicans taking American jobs! No more Mexicans period! And America will be great again! You mentioned people halfway around the world hating America’s guts. Well, doing it your way the whole world would hate your guts. But at least they’d know their place, right? ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677/40 "2016-10-12T11:15:24Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > The SCA goes al the way to the border. **And backing the guns away and digging new holes** (actually, they’d have to do that in the opposite order) costs money, even in North Korea, money the government simply doesn’t have. It also costs time and personnel they don’t have the werewithal to put to the task at the moment. Say what? Are you under the impression that there are artillery pieces with a minimum range of 20 miles? That’s more like the maximum range of most howitzers. I don’t think minimum range is an issue unless you’re talking less than a few miles, or if you’re firing [one of these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon). (The M777 howitzer has a min. range of about 2 miles, for reference.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-south-korea-survive-a-trump-presidency/767677.md?page=3)