Seoul Weighs Shift in U.S. Military Ties

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 5/31/2010 | Jay Solomon

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

South Korea is reviewing its defense policy following North Korea's alleged sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, a process that could significantly change Seoul's military alliance with Washington, according to officials engaged in the process.

Over the past week, U.S. and South Korean leaders have outlined plans to conduct war games and strategy sessions to better equip the South for combating the type of submarine attack Pyongyang is accused by international investigators to have staged in March, killing 46 South Korean sailors.

For the longer term, President Lee Myung-bak's conservative government could seek to alter the alliance's command structure and Seoul's weapons arsenal in ways that would affect the Pentagon's current strategic planning for Northeast Asia, according to these officials

South Korean defense strategists already are publicly pressing Mr. Lee to delay the planned 2012 transfer of operational control of the combined U.S.-South Korean fighting force to Seoul from Washington, arguing South Korea isn't prepared yet to oversee American forces.

The agreement between Washington and Seoul has a clause that allows South Korea's president to formally request a suspension of the transfer. The U.S. currently deploys 29,000 troops in South Korea, and the South Korean military deploys 600,000.

Some South Korean officials involved in the president's military-overhaul drive also are calling for Seoul to develop more offensive strategic weapons as a means to deter the nuclear-armed North from future aggression. Currently, South Korea's defense agreement with the U.S. prohibits Seoul from deploying precision-guided missiles with a range of more than 300 kilometers

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Some South Korean officials involved in the president's military-overhaul drive also are calling for Seoul to develop more offensive strategic weapons as a means to deter the nuclear-armed North from future aggression. Currently, South Korea's defense agreement with the U.S. prohibits Seoul from deploying precision-guided missiles with a range of more than 300 kilometers

You mentioned this several weeks ago

[DB]

So are there many South Koreans protesting or presence there now?

[RC one]

japan is rethinking our strategic relationship as well. Our base on Okinawa isn’t quite as unpopular as it was a few weeks ago for some reason.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

http://the-diplomat.com/2010/03/02/us-forces-ok-in-rok-for-now/

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/05/25/01.xml&headline=Okinawa%20Decision%20Has%20Missile%20Defense%20Element&channel=defense

[JoSixChip]

It would be a mistake to depend on America for your defense. Just ask Israel. The world is in for a rude awakening once obumber and his supporters are done with their plan for us.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

We have a Mutual Defense Treaty with South Korea that was signed in 1953. We are obligated to come to their defense.

[DB]

I remember that incident well. I was pretty bitter about it at the time.

Thank you for the update.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

No Problem. Anytime

:)

[Captain Beyond]

Well here is thing if it comes to war will Barry and company side with and defend our allies or let them fend for themselves and see what the world's reaction is and do some focus group polling before deciding what to do? Or as usual just vote present and do nothing at all BO's main MO.

[JoSixChip]

"We have a Mutual Defense Treaty with South Korea that was signed in 1953. We are obligated to come to their defense."

Really? You think a government does not honor its own laws or Constitution can be trusted to honor a treaty with a foreign country? I don't, not for a second!

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

This one was ratified by the Senate on November 17, 1954. I

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

I have no idea what he will do. Maybe crawl under a pillow

[TigerLikesRooster]

Right. That is what we should do. That is the effective way to send China a message they cannot miss without firing a shot. If that happens, those sailors did not die in vain.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

You are the man!

[JoSixChip]

"This one was ratified by the Senate on November 17, 1954. I"

We are not communicating, your statement assumes this government will follow laws. My point is there is no evidence obumber and his minions will follow any laws they don't want to.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

We’ll if they don’t they will be screaming from Capitol Hill.

[JoSixChip]

"We’ll if they don’t they will be screaming from Capitol Hill."

And if a tree falls in the forest and it is not reported, who will hear it? Sleep well.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Remember, there are 37,000 American troops in Korea within spitting distance of the DMZ