Seoul vows to bar U.S. strike at North Korea

International Herald Tribune ^ | July 8th, 2005 | Choe Sang-Hun

[Stag_Man]

One more point, we should keep troop in Korea if if/when the two are reunified. China knows we may do this and therefore bring us even closer to their borders. This is why they want the peninsula to stay divided and don't want the North to have nukes. They don't want anything to happen that might trigger reunification.p>

[carl in alaska]

"This should not come as a surprise, and it's actually very old news. South Korea knows that the "cost" of U.S. military action against North Korea may very well be the annihilation of Seoul in a North Korean nuclear attack, and I can understand why they would think that way."

We would never strike North Korea without taking out NK's nuclear capability in this strike. We cannot allow North Korea to become the nuclear breadbasket of the terrorist world, and we will not allow this to happen. As the Bush Administration said a few weeks ago: one way or another, North Korea is going to give up its nuclear weapons. The alternative risks nothing less than the destruction of our country as we know it in a nuclear sneak atack by terrorists. In the final analysis, the position of South Korea's government will not be a major factor in our decision because this is such a critical national security issue. The naive opinions of terrorist appeasers and apologizers in Canada and Europe will also not be a significant factor. But if we have to hit North Korea, we'll hit them so fast and so hard that they won't be able to do much to South Korea in retaliation.

[carl in alaska]

"Remember about a month ago when Rumsfeld announced US troops would be moved from near the NK border to southern SK? President Roh was very upset at this prospect, he smelled the beginnings of an eventual pullout."

Roh doesn't smell a pullout, he smells a potential US strike on North Korea. We're moving our troops away from the border to position them out of the range of NK's artillery, so that our troops are safe from a retaliatory attack by NK.

[moog]

we have ICBM's and cruise missles now....no problem...

old ones

[moog]

Nice points about Korea.

[moog]

In ancient times, China was regarded as Korea's "big brother."

[NJ_gent]

"But look at the heat Bush is getting over Iraq which was a no-brainer. Can you imagine the flack for starting a nuke war over there with this fruitcake?"

Assuming they had nuclear weapons before we went into Iraq, they lacked the means to deliver them. The Tae-po Dong II was not even flight tested by itself, let alone with a nuclear warhead, when we went into Iraq. It would not have been a nuclear war, but a conventional war; albeit a massive one. The difference between that war and the Iraq war is that once the North Korean military (or rather, the North Korean government) is beaten, the citizenry would actually embrace us and help root out any remaining loyalists.

That said, it would not have been an easy war. North Korea has been planning for an American invasion for the past 50 years. The DMZ is a death trap. We would have needed a massive commitment of forces to handle the situation. However, it would have prevented the current nuclear crisis that faces us now. The longer we wait to deal with North Korea, the better the chances that we'll be unable to do so without risking the nuclear destruction of several American cities.

Diplomacy doesn't work with these psychos. The notion that we're going to talk them down is absurd. Bill Clinton tried doing that in 1994, when the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea first surfaced. The Agreed Framework was a good agreement, but they didn't respect it and we didn't enforce it. Now we're back to talking again (though we're not talking right now), while North Korea builds more bombs and tests more powerful delivery systems. We're going to end up in a situation where we're talking to nutcases who are threatening Washington, DC with nuclear destruction. MAD doesn't work when your enemy doesn't give a damn. Flak? How much flak is it worth enduring to keep that situation from coming to be?

"To deal with it properly now means anniliation of Seoul."

Unfortunately for South Korea, Seoul is probably going to be destroyed one way or another at this point. I doubt that's something that can really be helped. We may, however, be able to save Tokyo if we can figure out a way to get manpower and equipment there quickly and quietly.

"This is politically unacceptable to any president."

It should be more acceptable to any President than the nuclear destruction of several major American cities.

"I think the only answer is small swat teams taking out pieces of NK slowly over time."

Everything I've seen on the subject says that even getting HUMINT in North Korea is extremely difficult because they're so incredibly paranoid. For us to wage a successful guerrilla war would seem to be nearly impossible in my opinion, simply for the fact that I don't see how we get enough boots and equipment on the ground to make it happen. It's not an open society like our's. The closest example of their society would be the one depicted in Orwell's 1984. Successfully infiltrating and carrying out the types and volume of missions necessary to destabilize Kim Jong-il's regime seems, to me, to be very risky business with little chance of success.

[Paul Ross]

When you throw in our large economic ties with South Korea (anyone own a Samsung cell phone?) and the fact that there are usually 50,000 American civilians in South Korea--most of them in Seoul--the picture is clear that we cannot leave South Korea. It would be tantamount to shirking our nation's duty to protect our citizens lives and livelihoods.

H'mmm. Funny no one talked about "shirking our nations duty to protect our citizens lives and livelihoods." when the industries were allowed to be set up over there with our tech. Maybe we better get those jobs and manufacturing plants we undoubtedly paid for BACK here pronto....

[Stag_Man]

H'mmm. Funny no one talked about "shirking our nations duty to protect our citizens lives and livelihoods." when the industries were allowed to be set up over there with our tech. Maybe we better get those jobs and manufacturing plants we undoubtedly paid for BACK here pronto....

---

How do you propose to bring Korean owned and operated companies with Korean employees "back" to the US? You can't undo what has already happened. We gave them starter technology and they ran with it and prospered. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. This is the current situation and we must keep our troops and presence in South Korea to protect our interests.

[A CA Guy]

Quit supplying the North with food, let others do it or let them starve and the North will have to give up their idiot leader and current direction.

[iThinkBig]

"I would recommend we start to redeploy out of South Korea. If this president or his party are reelected, we should be gone permanently.

South Korea can make its best deal with the North and with China, and they'll have to live with it. We've generally stood by countries that wanted to be free. But if, in their minds, we're the problem, then they are ready to leave the nest. Its time for us to back away and let them."

Well put. Our guys on the ground are nothing but a speed bump anyways if the North attacks. We can launch very big bombs and missles from 200 miles away as a deterrent now.

[iThinkBig]

"If Kim Jong-il gets his hands on the South Korean economy, his weapons programs will advance by leaps and bounds." If and in my opinion WHEN it happens, their wont be nothing left of a South Korean economy.

[iThinkBig]

"Stupid statement. We are still nominally negotiating with them over this, and even if the guy is sincere you NEVER limit your side's negotiation options like that.
There are certain strategic advantages to maintaining a presence in Korea but they are fading daily. We don't have enough ground troops there to act as anything more than a tripwire and haven't for decades. We don't really need airfields. Ports of call, however, still present an advantage, as do intelligence assets. So it isn't an entirely altruistic deployment.

It is, of course, possible that at some point in the future China will employ military assets to eliminate an economic rival, but that is not terribly likely inasmuch as South Korea really isn't that direct a rival (yet) and the costs in trade loss with a dismayed West may prove prohibitive. In any case South Korea will diminish as an economic rival anyway just as soon as reunification takes place as they will bear the brunt of the staggering rebuilding costs. What China wants there can be obtained without rolling any armored divisions or taking the concomitant risk of a larger conflict. And their focus is very much on Taiwan.

My guess is that a quiet, staged withdrawal might be in everyone's best interest. North Korea's principal value to the Chinese in its current state is its ability to annoy the U.S. and its regional allies. I do not think Europe takes the nuclear proliferation threat seriously enough to even factor in this. Our strategic objective here should be to make North Korea cost the Chinese more than it's worth. At that point reunification will seem a viable option, especially if it's on the South Korean dime. And personally I would not give the Koreans a penny of aid in that regard - it's their country, their project, their problem. All IMHO and subject to vigorous debate, of course."

Perfect assessment.

[plain talk]

This is politically unacceptable to any president." It should be more acceptable to any President than the nuclear destruction of several major American cities.

Of course, using hindsight logic! If the public knew cities would be destroyed they would overwhelming support invasion of NK. But no one has a crystal ball. So no President will perform an all-out invasion of NK unless they attack first. Won't happen. Seoul has 9.5M people. No one in their right mind would just write them off. So there will have to be a smarter way via SWAT teams, perhaps targeted cruise missle strikes (much of their operation, however, is underground) etc. I just hope someone in this admin has a plan because we have a serious problem here and in Iran.

[Hunble]

ROTFLMAO!

[kabar]

The reason we are there is to oppose the North. North Korea would be a threat to our security even without the South. South Korea is the perfect place to keep troops to oppose the North and make sure that our interests in the region are protected and represented physically on the ground. The USFK give us credibility (i.e. it is a visible sign of our commitment--you can't see a nuclear umbrella) in a region vital to our economy and security though geographically remote from us.,/i>

How many troops are enough to represent our commitment? No one is advocating a total pullout. Rumsfeld wanted to reduce the level from 37,000 to 25,000 now and perhaps down to 12,000 to 13,000 down the road. We need the bare minimum there so we can address real needs elsewhere. Commitment is a euphemism for trip wire troops.

Having forces on the Korean peninsula is also crucial to security strategy in the Far East as a whole. The peninsula has always been the lynch pin to the region. It borders Japan, China and Russia. All three of the countries are hugely important to our national interests. Out forces in South Korea put us right in the middle of the region. If China becomes hostile, we have military bases a very short air flight away from their industrial region. Bases in South Korea give us options and leverage in the Far East as a whole.

We have bases in Japan. If we were in a big time shooting war with China, our bases in Korea (with 37,000 troops) would not be of any real use and our air bases would come under attack. I wonder if the Koreans would want to be drawn into a shooting war between the US and China, if for example, China were to attack Taiwan.

We could always set up skeleton bases in Korea that could be rapidly built up in time of crisis. Tying down forces needlessly doesn't contribute to our overall defense posture. We need to look at our force levels around the globe in terms of our overall strategy and threat assessment. Flexibility is key.

When you throw in our large economic ties with South Korea (anyone own a Samsung cell phone?) and the fact that there are usually 50,000 American civilians in South Korea--most of them in Seoul--the picture is clear that we cannot leave South Korea. It would be tantamount to shirking our nation's duty to protect our citizens lives and livelihoods.

You don't station large numbers of troops to protect American citizens working overseas. We have 30,000 Americans working in Saudi Arabia. The number of Americans working overseas is well over a million.

[wingman1]

"We can do all the SK defending we need to do from Guam."

Bring our troops home or redeploy them if they are not appreciated.

[LenS]

"Screw the S. Koreans!!:

Well, somebody better start because their fertility rate is pitiful. At 1.2 and dropping, even the Japanese and Italy have higher fertility rates.

[Stag_Man]

I never argued against reducing our presence. Maintaining skeleton bases capable of being beefed up in an emergency is exactly what I advocate. My senior thesis argued just that point. I am arguing against those in this thread who want us to totally pull out of South Korea. Yes we have 30,000 people in S.A. (we have troops in S.A. anyway), but they are not threatened by a conventional military threat but terrorists. This requires a completely different security strategy (re: the National Security Strategy and the Quadrennial Defense Review Report of 2001) than the one in Korea (which essentially a remnant of the Cold War). Our troops in South Korea help to deter conventional attack. No place in the world is threatened like Seoul is.

Regardless, your arguing with someone who basically agrees with you. Our presence in South Korea desperately needs to be rethought and rennovated--South Korea is no longer a helpless nation we're keeping on life support and the USFK should reflect this. This, however, in no way means we pull out entirely. By renovating our USFK we will strengthen our alliance with South Korea, not weaken it.

Re Taiwan: We're the only ones who care about them. That's the way it is. Neither South Korea nor Japan would help us in a war over the island. No one in the world would fight with us for Taiwan. That's just the sad truth. Which is a reason we need troops in Korea and the surrounding region. If we need to save Taiwan by ourselves, we need every military resource in the region we can get.

[rbmillerjr]

"They'd take Taiwan."

Sounds easy but it isn't. Taiwan has a capable air force and navy...China does not have a great amphib infrastructure and even less capable when you consider training. There are some easily defensive mountains in Taiwan IF they got on shore in any size force.

The US air power would be available on the initial assault in a standoff mode to help reduce the Chinese aircraft. We are not going to have 2 carriers in the Pacific fleet that will be there in short order. In reality, the Chinese ability to take Taiwan is in serious doubt.

"They can project force all the way to Japan if they so chose"

All the way...to Japan...that's not that far...and they couldn't sustain an attack on Japan,,,the Japanese airpower and navy is very technologically sound. You are totally overestimating the ability of Japan to project power. Striking at somebody is not real projection of power. They couldn't grap anything as important as Taiwan or Japan and would never be able to logistically maintain it even if they could. Those forces would be cut off very quickly with mulitiple carriers and deep long range strike aircraft pounding the Chinese and their sealanes for reinforcements and supply.