U.S. Would Send 690,000 Troops to Korea If War Breaks Out: Report

Yonhap News Worldservice (S Korea) ^

[RCW2001]

Seoul, Dec. 27 (Yonhap) -- The United States would deploy some 690,000 troops to augment the 37,000-strong American military presence already here if war should break out on the peninsula, a Defense Ministry report showed Friday.

   The augmented forces would comprise of Army divisions, carrier battle groups with highly-advanced fighters, tactical fighter wings, and marine expeditionary forces in Okinawa and on the U.S. mainland, according to the "1998-2002 Defense Policy." The ministry published the report instead of a white paper.

[the_doc]

You didn't understand me. And you didn't understand Rumsfeld if you heard him.

He said we could fight two wars simultaneously. And I will assure that he was not talking about drafting several hundred thousand troops and throwing them into battle on 24 hours' notice.

My point is that the United States will NOT fight a war with NK using 690,000 troops. If this thing heats up into a real war with North Korea WHILE we are are waging a war with Iraq, we will do what we need to do to win. And that includes nukes.

In other words, we will not RE-FIGHT the old Korean War. We will fight it the way MacArthur wanted to fight it fifty years ago.

It's obvious to me that this is what Rumsfeld was talking about.

[HighRoadToChina]

"Red China is gone. It's just China..."

Don't be so sure. The Third Reich was going to be around for a thousand years....

[montag813]

Who gives a crap about South Korea? They all hate our guts there anyway. Let those commie bastard "students" who riot against us do the fighting and dying. Our "relationship" is a one way street. We build things there and give them jobs, we import Kia's and Hyundai's. They import oil from the Arabs, plastic crap from China, and nothing from us. Now this new punk ass "President" over there is pissed at us too. I say to hell with them. We can nuke the whole peninsula when its all over.

[Steel Wolf]

"Red China is gone. It's just China..."

Don't be so sure. The Third Reich was going to be around for a thousand years....

He's right, however. The Chinese are far less communist than we are. While I was over there I asked them about welfare, medicine, and social programs. After some polite laughter, I was informed that only in the U.S. would the government spend money on the poor like that.

Autocratic? Despotic? Certainly.

Red? Not in the least.

[krb]

No goddammned deferments. If it takes a draft to keep us free, lets do it the right way this time.

If you go, I'm in...

[wwcj]

Been there once, will go again. I'm in to.

[HighRoadToChina]

Should explain the MacArthur way of dealing with the NPRK. Wasn't he going to sow radioactive cesium 60 (or something like that that would last about 60 years) from the DMZ all the way up north. Should have done it. Now it's going to get radioactive south of the DMZ.

[krb]

What do you think the age rules will be if there's a draft in the 2003-2005 timeframe?

[wwcj]

under 30

[krb]

Draft those under 30? And up up to what age would you allow to enlist?

[HighRoadToChina]

Only because the flip side to Communism is socialism. The Chinese people are brainwashed by the later. Don't let that one trite answer fool you. Socialism is much more than the iron rice bowl. What Mao and his cronies have done is transform China from the old Confucian society into the modern day socialist police state. This so called "free enterprise" that you see in Shanghai is there only to serve two purposes: release the pent up energies of the Chinese people while harnessing it at the same time to maintain and build up the Communist war machine.

[wwcj]

personally, i would rather go by physically fit and up to 40

[Steel Wolf]

The rules, as of right now, is that you must be no older than 35 upon beginning of basic training. One soldier in my basic traning cycle turned 36 a few days after showing up.

[fogarty]

So you think we would abandon the restriction on first-use of nuclear weapons? Do you think Bush will initiate such a major change of national strategy, and what affects will first-use nuclear weapon use have around the world with regards to our diplomacy abroad?

[the_doc]

Yeah, MacArthur did want to use radioactivity. But I think Rumsfeld is thinking of more conventional use of unconventional weaponry.

We have never forsworn the use of nuclear weapons. We will obviously use them when we think they are necessary. For example, we will use them in the way we used them against Japan--i.e., in lieu of throwing a million men at the enemy.

Since NK is a nuclear power, so to speak, it's a lot easier to justify anyway. The American people would never let our POTUS put a million men in two different military theaters.

[Libertina]

Our citizens couldn't run to Mexico. They don't allow illegal immigration. LOL

[wwcj]

I think an older crowd would be a good balance to the type of mantality of the younger generation today. Even though this generations mantality is equal to technology, I feel they may lack team work and perseverance that older generations grew up with.

[Steel Wolf]

I would agree with you on your assessment of their economic goals. Capitalism and wealth are greatly desired among the Chinese, but a free market economy is more than the 'control freak' government can stomach.

That having been said, Communism in China is dead. I've talked with party members on the subject, as well as students. 'Gongchan zhuyi' (literally 'public production- ism) is the tired old product that the government pushes because of habit and name recognition. The ideas behind it carry no water. In historical reference, it's as if the beauracrats are running the country for an Emperor who has no interest in the affairs of state. They use his name, and his seal, but he's nowhere to be found.

They can't refer to themselves as Nationalist, since that name is synonymous with the old government. They don't really have a choice but to keep the same name, since there is no dynasty to install, nor any new belief. Fascist is the most accurate term, but that word (faxi zhuyi) literally means 'Western method ism', and that wouldn't sit well with anyone.

[the_doc]

Yes, I think so. See my #115. It's a matter of realism. We can't conscript 700,000 men at the drop of a hat--so we won't.

Either we go nuclear, or we give away South Korea and 35,000 American soldiers.

Of course, if the whole thing just smolders for a while and we see that we have time to put a couple hundred thousand more troops in S.Korea (not a good idea, IMO), we might do that in the chess game.

I like William Safire's proposal--which is to pull all of our troops out of South Korea (out from under the NK guns). If NK attacks the South, we defend the South with stand-off weapons. In other words, we incinerate the North.

The US has always taken the position that our nuclear arsenal exists for a reason--and it's not just to respond to a nuclear attack. It's to win wars we have to win but can't win any other way.

[the_doc]

By the way, I think it would scare the daylights out of NK if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea--if we smiled real big while we were doing it.