View Poll Results: What is the best course of action in dealing with North Korea?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Full scale preemptive military strike

    4 28.57%
  • Limited preemptive military strike

    0 0%
  • Appeasement in the form of recognition and aid

    1 7.14%
  • Strategic Patience - Neither negotiation nor military action

    9 64.29%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 43 of 57 FirstFirst ... 34353637383940414243444546474849505152 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 645 of 843

Thread: The Korean Dilemma

  1. #631
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    Ah, that might come sooner then as sweetners

  2. #632
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,912
    Double Edge, you were wondering how the Japanese can get screwed.

    If this report is right, this is one of those ways

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...504-story.html


    President Trump said Friday that he hopes to eventually withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea but would not use a pullout as a bargaining chip when he meets with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un seeking a deal to curb Pyongyang's nuclear weapons.

    "At some point into the future, I would like to save the money" it costs to keep up to 32,000 American troops in South Korea, Trump told reporters on Air Force One. He added that a withdrawal will not be on the table at the first planned U.S.-North Korean summit after more than six decades of hostility.

    U.S. and North Korean officials have agreed on a date and location for the nuclear summit, Trump said, promising to announce the details shortly. The White House said South Korean President Moon Jae-in will visit the White House on May 22, so the summit is unlikely before then.

    Trump's vow not to immediately offer a U.S. withdrawal, a long-standing demand by Pyongyang, may be aimed at easing concerns among his military advisors and U.S. allies in the region that, in his eagerness for a deal, Trump would bargain away a cornerstone of U.S. security strategy in northeast Asia.

    But Trump only added to the uncertainty Friday by repeating his previous vows to bring at least some U.S. troops home from South Korea because he considers the deployment a costly waste. His comments came after weeks of conflicting signals from administration officials, including reports that Trump's aides had to talk him out of ordering a major withdrawal from Korea.

    The topic is so sensitive that John Bolton, Trump's national security advisor, denounced as "utter nonsense" a New York Times story Friday that said Trump had asked the Pentagon for withdrawal options.

    Like Trump, Pentagon officials have given conflicting statements about a possible drawdown of U.S. troops from the region.

    Defense Secretary James N. Mattis said last week that troop levels "was one of the issues we'll be discussing" with allies and with Pyongyang if North and South Korea sign a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, which halted in 1953 with a tense cease-fire.

    In a statement Friday, Lt. Col Christopher B. Logan, a Pentagon spokesman, said the mission in South Korea "remains the same and our force posture has not changed." He said the Defense Department is "developing and maintaining military options for the president, and reinforcing our ironclad security commitment with our allies. We all remain committed to complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

    The U.S. has stationed troops in South Korea since the Korean War. Together with major U.S. air and Navy bases in Japan, the Pentagon keeps a massive military presence in northeast Asia to support a defense treaty that requires the United States to come to South Korea's aid if it is attacked.

    South Korean officials also have dismissed the idea that U.S. troops would be removed. A spokesman for President Moon told reporters Wednesday in Seoul that Moon considered U.S. troops "a matter of the South Korea-U.S. alliance" that "has nothing to do with signing a peace treaty" with Pyongyang.

    Over the decades Washington has gradually shifted the cost of keeping troops onto the government in Seoul. South Korea now pays more than $890 million a year, about half the annual cost for the deployment, not including personnel costs that the Defense Department would have to pay no matter where the troops were located.

    Trump has insisted repeatedly, and inaccurately, that Japan and other U.S. allies contribute little or nothing to the United States for their own defense.

    Advocates for reducing the U.S. presence in South Korea argue that if the threat from North Korea diminishes, so would the need for keeping large number of U.S. troops on the peninsula.

    "The U.S. posture on the peninsula can be adjusted according to the threat South Korea perceives from North Korea," said Abraham Denmark, a former senior Pentagon official responsible for Asia. "That's different than it being a bargaining chip."

    Opponents argue that U.S. troops will be required for years to deter a conventional attack by North Korea even in the unlikely event it agrees to eliminate or reduce its nuclear and missile stockpiles after the Trump-Kim summit.

    North Korea has more than 1.2 million troops, a massive if increasingly obsolete ground force that poses a direct threat to Seoul, only 35 miles from the demilitarized zone dividing north and south, if hostilities broke out.

    Any reductions in the size of North Korea's armed forces are likely to occur over years — as would any withdrawals of U.S. troops, officials said.

    Unlike his father and grandfather, who previously ruled North Korea, Kim has not made a withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea a priority and may not demand it at the summit, analysts say.

    "I don't think he would object to having them leave, but I'm not sure he would push for that, either," said Gi-Wook Shin, director of Stanford University's Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.

    The U.S. troops give Kim leverage with China, which sees North Korea as a buffer state between its border and a well-armed U.S. ally. A U.S. withdrawal could lessen North Korea's importance to Beijing, costing it economic aid and other support.

    Pentagon officials view U.S. bases in Korea and Japan as key to the regional contest for influence with an increasingly assertive China. It's another reason they are likely to resist any push by Trump to withdraw unilaterally.

    Despite Trump's complaints, the Pentagon shows every sign of wanting to stay indefinitely in South Korea.

    Last year, U.S. commanders began moving troops from bases in downtown Seoul and near the Demilitarized Zone along the border with North Korea to Camp Humphreys, an expansive military base that houses more than 10,000 American soldiers about 40 miles south of Seoul.

    Construction of the base cost an estimated $10.8 billion. The South Korean government paid nearly the entire tab.

    Leaving Seoul is meant to reduce friction between U.S. troops and Koreans in the country's biggest city, while pulling back from the demilitarized zone is intended to get large number of U.S. troops out of range of North Korean artillery.

    But even some South Korean officials expect demands will intensify for American soldiers to go home if North and South Korea sign a peace treaty and relations improve.

    "It will be difficult to justify their continuing presence in South Korea," Chung-in Moon, a special advisor to President Moon, wrote in Foreign Affairs this week.

    The uncertainty comes at a sensitive time. In March, U.S. and South Korean diplomats began negotiating an extension of the agreement specifying how much Seoul will pay toward the costs of keeping U.S. forces in South Korea.

    U.S. officials are expected to press Seoul to hike its contributions in the next four-year agreement. But the deal has to be approved by the South Korean parliament, where many legislators may be reluctant to pay more when they are seeking warmer ties with Pyongyang.

    Most of the money stays in South Korea, paying for local labor, rent, utilities and the construction of barracks and other military facilities.
    Japan knows Trump wants to be seen as the deal maker that he ran as. And bringing some, or all of the troops back home would play well to his base.

    He is looking at pulling at least some of the troops out. He may use this to "Sweeten the deal". And hope to get a Nobel Prize out of it.

    Get the Nobel Prize , and boost that his is real because he did something not like his predecessor who was given one. The base would love him. If he doesn't get the prize, then he complains about how unfairly he is treated and the base loves him even more.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  3. #633
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    He is looking at pulling at least some of the troops out.
    What do you think about pulling out some or the vast majority of US combat troops from South Korea?

    Personally I think Trump is right on this one: It's a waste of money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Get the Nobel Prize , and boost that his is real because he did something not like his predecessor who was given one. The base would love him. If he doesn't get the prize, then he complains about how unfairly he is treated and the base loves him even more.
    The thought of that afterbirth getting a Nobel Prize disgusts me almost as much as it did when Obama got it.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  4. #634
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    2,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Double Edge, you were wondering how the Japanese can get screwed.

    If this report is right, this is one of those ways

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...504-story.html




    Japan knows Trump wants to be seen as the deal maker that he ran as. And bringing some, or all of the troops back home would play well to his base.

    He is looking at pulling at least some of the troops out. He may use this to "Sweeten the deal". And hope to get a Nobel Prize out of it.

    Get the Nobel Prize , and boost that his is real because he did something not like his predecessor who was given one. The base would love him. If he doesn't get the prize, then he complains about how unfairly he is treated and the base loves him even more.
    *Pulls out hair and runs around the block screaming*

  5. #635
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    GS,

    How does withdrawing troops from South Korea screw Japan?

    Joe,

    South Korea needs US Generals. Reading all accounts on the internet, America's Asian allies are all by-the-book type, following the books to the letter, lacking flexibility and oppertunism. The South Koreans don't need US brigades engaging in direct combat against the North Koreans. However, they do need the HQs from those brigades directing combat for all forces against the North Koreans.

  6. #636
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,325
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Joe,

    South Korea needs US Generals. Reading all accounts on the internet, America's Asian allies are all by-the-book type, following the books to the letter, lacking flexibility and oppertunism. The South Koreans don't need US brigades engaging in direct combat against the North Koreans. However, they do need the HQs from those brigades directing combat for all forces against the North Koreans.
    Sir,
    That would be the best of both worlds: Withdraw the majority of the combat troops, possibly set up a division-sized POMCUS site(s), retain only brigade HQs and advisory units.

    Stay in the neighborhood with a minimal footprint.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  7. #637
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Sir,
    That would be the best of both worlds: Withdraw the majority of the combat troops, possibly set up a division-sized POMCUS site(s), retain only brigade HQs and advisory units.

    Stay in the neighborhood with a minimal footprint.
    A USArmy General with no troops to command. Somehow, I don't see that happening. This ain't Canada.

  8. #638
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    GS,

    How does withdrawing troops from South Korea screw Japan?
    Am wondering about that too. If troops can be withdrawn, some, the same applies to Japan which has still more according to these 2015 figures. That's savings all around if the threat is reduced


  9. #639
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,912
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    GS,

    How does withdrawing troops from South Korea screw Japan?
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge
    Am wondering about that too. If troops can be withdrawn, some, the same applies to Japan which has still more according to these 2015 figures. That's savings all around if the threat is reduced

    Where are the troops acting as a tripwire against aggression towards Japan? The RoK

    The entire, boots on the ground force in Japan is the 3d Marine Division (-) (Rein). The total amount of lift in Japan to move those troops has the capacity to move 1 Battalion Landing Team(-). If the ESG is in port.

    There are no US Army combat troops stationed in Japan. All logistic forces.

    The USAF has F-16s at Masawa- configured for SEAD/DEAD. They have F-15s at Kadena. KC-135s and E-3s. Yokota has a C-130 squadron

    The Navy has Carrier Air Wing 5 (4 F-18 squadrons) at Iwakuni. They are only available when the Ronald Reagan isn't deployed to the PG.

    The USMC has 1 F-18D Squadron and 1 F-35B squadron.

    The RoK is where the US military's forward combat force for the entire Far East is located.

    The Japanese military is a defensive force only. And before you complain, remember that the US forced them to put that in their Constitution. We promised to defend them, to keep their neighbors, our allies from being nervous about another militaristic Japanese government.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  10. #640
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Where are the troops acting as a tripwire against aggression towards Japan? The RoK

    ...

    The Japanese military is a defensive force only. And before you complain, remember that the US forced them to put that in their Constitution. We promised to defend them, to keep their neighbors, our allies from being nervous about another militaristic Japanese government.
    I can't imagine anyone landing troops on any of the Japanese Home Islands.

  11. #641
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,912
    Doesn't have to be a landing on the home islands. There is the missile threat from NK. There are islands that Japan has disputes about with NK, China, Russia. Among other interest.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  12. #642
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    But that brings up your point. Would Seoul allow the US to launch wars of agression against NK, Russia, or China to defend Japan?

  13. #643
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,701
    Russia and China is something completely else, but I can see Seoul accepting a proportionate US response if NK decided out of the blue to sink a Japanese ship or shot a few missiles at Japan.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  14. #644
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,912
    They may, or may not. That is an unknown. But with the troops there it is an unknown with teeth.

    With the troops gone, there isn't any threat of retaliation.

    I think Korea and Japan would allow us to use assets in their countries if NK /China/Russia acted as a belligerent, like in Astralis post.

    But I do not think they would allow us to launch preemptive strikes against NK because they may have a nuclear capable missile that might be able to strike the US.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  15. #645
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,912
    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...plomatic-fray/

    BEIJING – Japan must change its tune and adopt a new approach toward North Korea if it really wants to join the diplomatic fray in affecting rapidly evolving developments on the Korean Peninsula, the Rodong Sinmun said in a commentary on Sunday.

    “What it (Japan) has to remember is that it can never evade the fate of the left-out person if it behaves disgusting while repeating the old cliche of ‘sanctions’ and ‘pressure’ as now,” said the official newspaper of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party.

    It said the Japanese government was resorting to “flattering the American master, neighboring big powers and even the south Korean authorities, but it will never step on the sacred land of the Republic unless it drops its inveterate repugnancy and bad habit.”
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Drone Dilemma
    By Merlin in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15 Dec 09,, 00:02
  2. S. Korean perception of N. Korean nuclear program
    By Ironduke in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13 Jan 09,, 01:36
  3. the dreadful dilemma....
    By dave angel in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Sep 07,, 15:44
  4. The Second Korean War and China's dilemma...
    By YellowFever in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 24 Oct 06,, 06:41
  5. Dilemma of Confronting Fundamentalism
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Sep 05,, 22:34

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •