Replies

We're going to need about 100,000 in Iraq for occupation duty, most of the National Guard here at home for Homeland Security, 15,000 in Afghanistan, plus our Balkan deployments. We're screwed unless we restart the draft. Problem is, I think most of our young people will run for Mexico and Canada if the draft is restarted.

Actually, I disagree with you.

War in Korea would break out only if the North Koreans took an overt hostile act (consisting of a suprise attack of Main Force infantry and armor over the 38th Paralell-they have few ships worthy of the name and their air force is held together with bailing wire...)

If Plans calls for 690,000, then that means two things:

1. A complete reserve and National Guard callup.

2. Reinstitution of the draft.

The American people would accept this only if the North Koreans were stupid enough to attack and draw first blood. Which they would. They have more artillery tubes than you can shake a stick at and could lay down a barrage that could obliterate the Indianhead Division stationed at Camp Casey.

Trust me, we're not a nation of cowards. The only reason why we didn't reinstitute the draft now is because you don't fight shadow wars such as the one against Al Qaeda with massive conscript armies. Neither does one need a large conscript force to deal with Hussein's clown car force.

The North Koreans are a different matter. They make the North Vietnamese look like Girl Scouts. Case in point? The record of the ROK White Horse Division against the NVA and the VC back in the sixties. The Vietnamese did not want to be around when that unit was there.

We would need a draft. And the American people would respond. Being attacked will do that to you.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

The idea of a draft EVER occuring in the US again is laughable. It was a waste of time to discuss it, before the 91 Gulf War and a waste of time now.

1) The Army doesn't WANT draftees. They've gotten used to a volunteer army, comprised of troops that WANT to be there. Contrary to what one might expect Army generals don't go to bed at night dreaming of getting their hands on draftees.

2) Given the highly technological nature of warfare now, you're looking at months and months of training, FAR longer training than for WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, for a soldier to even be moderately useful. By the time any were ready, any conceivable war on the Korean peninsula would be long, long, long over. The NKs aren't going to get any logistical support from Russia or the PRC, and no PRC hordes of troops to aid them.

The White Horse Division, of course, was comprised of SOUTH Koreans. Considering you're extolling the fighting qualities of the SOUTH Koreans, who have a fair amount of technological superiority over the North Koreans, and that superiority is increasing every day, that argues that one would NOT need vast hordes of US troops to assist them.

From what I've seen from Korean War vets, other than that horrible initial period before Inchon when poorly-trained and unprepared US units were fed in piecemeal and horribly outnumbered versus North Korean forces, they were pretty unimpressed with the North Koreans compared with the Chinese Communists.

Also, when looking at the fighting record of fairly small forces (like the Turks in Korea, and the ROKs in Vietnam, etc.) Keep in mind that these countries, since they were sending such a small portion of their armies, were sending fairly elite forces; the peformance of these units, while a decent indication of the abilities of their respective armies, might be a bit misleading because the troops they sent were likely far better troops than the "average" forces in their armies.