US to pull troops from DMZ

[Axis Kast]

Good military sense.

While it may give Kim Jong-Il and a handful of South Korean apologists something to puff their chests about, one cannot deny that 37,500 American troops off the DMZ are still a viable core for the counter-offensive that would follow any invasion. As long as our troops aren’t leaving the penninsular, they still serve as a strong deterrent and ready-response force. My only concern is that even after the $11 billion infusion, they might not have enough equipment immediately on hand.

I think our troops should leave at some point, but not while Kim is still strutting around like a menacing dog.

[Howedar]

Napoleon, I'm waiting...

[Sea Skimmer]

A great many of those 37,500 are support or USAF personal. In terms of maneuver forces where only talking about two leg infantry brigades and two tank/mech infantry battalions. South Korea has disbanded more firepower from its active army in single years. Course though the 80's and 90's there active army was nearly the size of that of the US, and with reserves they can still field more manpower.

[Rubberanvil]

and Guam ain't exactly a thriving colonial city...

IIRC Guam is mostly a nature preserve with a air base on one side, with heavy restrictions placed on non-native, non-contracted civilians even thinking of living on the island.

[Rubberanvil]

The US does not have imperialist ambitions in Afghanistan; if anything, there is concern over the U.S. not doing ENOUGH to help rebuild the place.

Hard to rebuild a country when you're having to fight budget cuts, and hiring and tranporting enough civilian engineers and their equipment to do the job is too cost prohibited in this day and age in the States.

[RedImperator]

The troops on the DMZ would not have served any legitimate military purpose so far as I know--if the North Koreans came over the border, a few brigades would be a speed bump, and everyone knew it. And South Korea is more than capable of defending itself anyway. Those troops were political tools--in order to attack South Korea, Pyongyang would have to order its army to attack elements of the United States armed forces. In essense, any war with South Korea guranteed war with the United States. This would, in theory, prevent the Communists from talking themselves into believing our "gurantee" of S. Korea's independence was just us blowing smoke up their ass.

Someone in Washington must believe that either A) the North Koreans have accepted that we will come to Seoul's defense even if our troops are not directly attacked, B) the North Koreans understand they can't defeat South Korea, or C) the North Koreans are so crazy they'll attack regardless of what they think our response will be, and so there's no use putting thousands of our troops deliberately in harm's way.

[Sea Skimmer]

and Guam ain't exactly a thriving colonial city...

IIRC Guam is mostly a nature preserve with a air base on one side, with heavy restrictions placed on non-native, non-contracted civilians even thinking of living on the island.

That's about right; most of the small islets throughout the chain are also nature preserves, except one, which serves as Pacific fleet bombing range. Its Saipan and Tinian that have significant civilian development. Though everything is still of course tiny by the standards of the continental US. Though both islands status isn't the same as Guam IIRC.

[Joe]

The US does not have imperialist ambitions in Afghanistan; if anything, there is concern over the U.S. not doing ENOUGH to help rebuild the place.

Hard to rebuild a country when you're having to fight budget cuts, and hiring and tranporting enough civilian engineers and their equipment to do the job is too cost prohibited in this day and age in the States.

And I do agree with you, it's just that what seems to be the lack of interest in Afghanistan is indicative of the U.S. lack of imperial ambition there.

[Sea Skimmer]

And I do agree with you, it's just that what seems to be the lack of interest in Afghanistan is indicative of the U.S. lack of imperial ambition there.

What, you man the New Evil Empire of the US doesn’t plan to build an oil pipeline though a country filled for war lords and terrorists and then though another nation Pakistan, all filled with people who hate the US all so it can take one of the longest possibul ways to Baku and the Caspian sea?

[Joe]

And I do agree with you, it's just that what seems to be the lack of interest in Afghanistan is indicative of the U.S. lack of imperial ambition there.

What, you man the New Evil Empire of the US doesn?t plan to build an oil pipeline though a country filled for war lords and terrorists and then though another nation Pakistan, all filled with people who hate the US all so it can take one of the longest possibul ways to Baku and the Caspian sea?

Apparently not; no matter, surely we're making plans for expanding the Empire elsewhere.

[irishmick79]

So who will be sitting in the DMZ once the US troops pull out? Will that be duty left up to the South Koreans?

If yes, than this is a move that makes good military sense, as long as the South Korean military is proficient at patrolling the border, and gathering intelligence data on the North.

If not, then this is a bad move. The North Koreans routinely get caught for trying to tunnel in underneath the DMZ (although not as frequently as in previous decades). You've got to have a strong military presence in the DMZ area to keep an eye on that activity, and you've got to keep an eye on how close to the border the North Koreans are moving their equipment. If you've only going to be relying border guards and a few outposts, you might miss a few things that a full fledged brigade on patrol would be able to see.

[jegs2]

Seen some good discussion on the US forces in Korea and what their future disposition should be. Speaking as one who's actually been stationed in Korea, I will first say that my respect for the Korean people and the ROK Army was greatly increased by the time my one-year tour ended. It seemed that the further north one went, the more grateful the Korean people were for the US presence. That being said, I was there before 9/11 and a lot of events that ratcheted up anti-Americanism within Korea, and I understand that the environment there is much less friendly to Joes than it was when I was there. So ... my opinion? I think we should pull out of Korea completely, so I support any move that pulls 2 ID south of the Han. I know much about the Imnun Gun and OB of the DPRK, and I am certain that they could not beat the ROK armed forces. While the Korean civilians may seem to foolishly trust the northern dictator, rest assured that those controlling the ROK armed forces do not. That being said, I noticed that many of the "rock drops," that were part of the defenses built to defend against an invasion were removed in order to allow room for the railroad intended to link the DPRK with Korea. That seems a foolhearty move to me, but I'm looking at the situation from a military standpoint. It is my belief that if the DPRK invaded south, they would in turn be invaded by China from the north, and I think Kim Jung Il (or whatever his name is) knows that...

[Sea Skimmer]

The North has never really ever had a chance of beating the South militarily since 1950. Today they'd be lucky to get five miles pushing there tanks with rag wrapped feet.


ut what was within there capacity into the early 1990's was to launch such a massive attack that Seoul would be surrounded and the South would collapse politically even with much of its army intact. Causing a political collapse was really there main goal, and indeed was stressed heavily by the Soviets and most other major communist armies.

[HemlockGrey]

I've always wondered, if Seoul is so close to danger, why not move the capital south?

[Raptor 597]

I've always wondered, if Seoul is so close to danger, why not move the capital south?

Seoul would still be the mjor gathering center and close in the physce of the South Koreans for many years. Even if it was hit it'd still be a victory for the NK well atleast for one hour before ROK counter attacks. Shit, hey'll be lucky to make ten miles of advance in their whole campaign.

[Sea Skimmer]

I've always wondered, if Seoul is so close to danger, why not move the capital south?

Because it has always been the center of Korea, today it contains something like 25% of the nations population. There really was nothing else suitable in 1953 and it would have been a major hit to the South's prestige and negotiating position to be force out of its own capital even though it was held.

Anyway, in the 1950's and for quite some time after that it was out of range of Northern artillery. The North had to design new guns specifically to hit it. Staying out of SCUD range is impossible, the SCUD B can hit over 90% of the country and the SCUD C can hit everything.
.

[Axis Kast]

Someone in Washington must believe that either A) the North Koreans have accepted that we will come to Seoul's defense even if our troops are not directly attacked, B) the North Koreans understand they can't defeat South Korea, or C) the North Koreans are so crazy they'll attack regardless of what they think our response will be, and so there's no use putting thousands of our troops deliberately in harm's way.

Do you agree with these opinions?

[Enforcer Talen]

yeah, those seem like the realistic options.

[Ypoknons]

Just curious, how strong are North Korea's forces relative to South Korea's own? Do we have any fairly concrete numbers?

As for Seoul, I suppose moving a people's (well, half a people) cultural and political center would be difficult. It is close to the DMZ though, only a couple hour's drive by highway (memory getting foggy here). Great for tourism, not so good for repelling invasions. But as Sea Skimmer and Lennox said, it's not really pratical anyways.

Still, regardless of how powerful NK is right now, I'd still like to see US forces in South Korea to show that the US isn't backing down on opposing North Korea. And if anyone says that the people love Kim and that the country's economy is thriving, forget it.

[Vympel]

Just curious, how strong are North Korea's forces relative to South Korea's own? Do we have any fairly concrete numbers?

South Korea

versus

North Korea

North Korea has the numbers but it's technology sucks ass.

[Howedar]

Napoleooooon... I'm waiting...

[Sea Skimmer]

As for Seoul, I suppose moving a people's (well, half a people) cultural and political center would be difficult. It is close to the DMZ though, only a couple hour's drive by highway (memory getting foggy here). Great for tourism, not so good for repelling invasions. But as Sea Skimmer and Lennox said, it's not really pratical anyways.

The closest points of the DMZ are less then an hours drive away, more like 30 minutes. However that sector, near the coast, also has a wide river along it and sucks for an attack going either way.

The main invasion route is further to the east, and the DMZ its further north there, so you are talking about a couple hours drive under normal conditions. A week or two worth of hard fighting for a fully supplied North Korean invasion force to reach the Han though. But then they don't have a fully supplied force to attack with.