South Korea - Backpeddling?

[Segnosaur]

Ok, I have to admit, I don't see much in the news about South Korea. (Things have been greatly overshadowed by Iraq as of late.)

However, a radio commentator today mentioned a whole lot of 'back stepping' by South Korea. The current president (Roh) campaigned on an anti-American platform, suggesting U.S. troops should withdraw.

Recently, the U.S. said that they would seek to do just that (withdraw their troops); Since then, South Korea has been back-peddling, saying that they actually need to 'strengthen' ties to the U.S.

Does anyone have any information on this? I've done a few searches on news sites, but I haven't found much on this topic.

(Side note: Pehaps this is what the U.S. needs to do in Iraq. Threaten to actually withdraw all their troops from the region, and watch everyone scramble to say "wait, please stay".)

 

[Doubt]

Number of North Korean troops: 1,000,000+
Number of South Korean troops: 500,000+
Number of US troops in Korea: 37,000

South Korea can mount a credible defense without the US. The existing troop presence makes it easier to send more if needed.

If we pulled out of Kuwait, would they be able to defend themselves? Probably not.

Pulling out of Korea would not stop South Korea from defending itself. Pulling out of the Middle East is not equivalent to pulling out of Korea.

 

[Aoidoi]

I saw a thing on 60 Minutes a while back that said that the current president of SK was elected on an anti-American platform. It also appears that much of the country does not care for the US presence. So far as I recall nothing was mentioned about the US actually withdrawing forces, and the General in charge there stated that the mission was still necessary.

Sorry, don't have anything beyond that.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ok, I answered my own question. Here's an article which points out the desire to remove troops from South Korea. (Or, possibly just deploy them to neighbouring regions.)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384608

And then the article where South Korea wants U.S. troops to stay:

http://www.nj.com/newsflash/interna..._Koreas-Nuclear&&news&newsflash-international

For goodness sakes, make up your mind! Do they want US troops or not?

As Doubt suggested, South Korea has a large enough military (and enough economic power) to put up a good defense. (Of course, it makes you wonder why they would want the U.S. around then anyways?)

 

[aerocontrols]

Story Here

Or the New York Times:

South Korea, in Surprise, Demands U.S. Forces Stay in Place

SEOUL, South Korea, March 7 — Officials here said today that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had ignored them in suggesting realignment of American forces in Korea and demanded that they stay where they are at least until resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue.

South Korea's newly installed defense minister, Cho Young Kil, said Washington "has never officially informed us of the movement of U.S. troops" and "the withdrawal issue was never raised by the U.S. government."

Indeed, said Mr. Cho, talking to members of South Korea's fractious National Assembly, American and South Korean officials "will not discuss any possibility of movement of U.S. troops before the nuclear issue is resolved."

The demand for American troops to stay comes as a shock to United States officials, who had assumed they were responding to commonly held Korean thinking by pushing ahead with plans for shifting the American military post

MattJ

 

[Drooper]

Number of North Korean troops: 1,000,000+
Number of South Korean troops: 500,000+
Number of US troops in Korea: 37,000

South Korea can mount a credible defense without the US. The existing troop presence makes it easier to send more if needed.

If we pulled out of Kuwait, would they be able to defend themselves? Probably not.

Pulling out of Korea would not stop South Korea from defending itself. Pulling out of the Middle East is not equivalent to pulling out of Korea.

It is porbably more the point that as it stands at the moment, any attack by North Korea would mean an attack on US troops. The implications of that are extremely serious.

Following a complete US withdrawal, an attack by North Korea would be an attack on South Korean troops only. Still very serious, but the far superior option form the POV of North Korea.

 

[Saturn]

While South Korea may simply want U.S. troops to stay to defend their country, I have heard another plausible explanation. You see, the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea can almost be considered hostages, because in the event of hostilies, North Korea has enough artillery within striking distance to kill a large number of them. Since the South Koreans have heard so much about Bush's "Axis of Evil" and his desire to strike out against terrorism, many of them believe that a pullout at this point would be simply to get the troops out of harm's way prior to a preemptive strike against North Korea. In other words, the concern is not about the withdrawal itself, it's that a withdrawal may signal the beginning of war.

 

[Mike B.]

While South Korea may simply want U.S. troops to stay to defend their country, I have heard another plausible explanation. You see, the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea can almost be considered hostages, because in the event of hostilies, North Korea has enough artillery within striking distance to kill a large number of them. Since the South Koreans have heard so much about Bush's "Axis of Evil" and his desire to strike out against terrorism, many of them believe that a pullout at this point would be simply to get the troops out of harm's way prior to a preemptive strike against North Korea. In other words, the concern is not about the withdrawal itself, it's that a withdrawal may signal the beginning of war.

Pulling out troops to start a war? Don't you usually build up for war?
Wouldn't it be pretty darn bloody to try to land them in a D-Day style battle rather than have them there?

 

[Mike B.]

The ROK President ought to hang his head in shame. He lied through his teeth by saying that he was at meetings in which the US was planning to attack North Korea. Of course, the people started to get upset as he demagouged the issue.

He said a few weeks ago that he was mistaken. He was misinterpreting news reports on television and no such meeting took place.

I got to find a link to that...sorry

 

[Doubt]

While South Korea may simply want U.S. troops to stay to defend their country, I have heard another plausible explanation. You see, the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea can almost be considered hostages, because in the event of hostilies, North Korea has enough artillery within striking distance to kill a large number of them. Since the South Koreans have heard so much about Bush's "Axis of Evil" and his desire to strike out against terrorism, many of them believe that a pullout at this point would be simply to get the troops out of harm's way prior to a preemptive strike against North Korea. In other words, the concern is not about the withdrawal itself, it's that a withdrawal may signal the beginning of war.

It would be pretty close to impossible to attack North Korea without support from Japan and South Korea. Local logistical support would be required. This would also not go over well with China. What would we do with North Korea afterwards? Hand it over to a less than thrilled South Korea so it can drag their economy down for a decade or more?

All that artillery is only useful if you know where to shoot it. First thing that happens during an alert is everybody leaves their bases. Also, most of the NK weapons are antiquated. I don't think they would be in business very long if they tried to use it. Counter battery fire and air strikes would reduce them in a hurry.

 

[aerocontrols]

All that artillery is only useful if you know where to shoot it. First thing that happens during an alert is everybody leaves their bases. Also, most of the NK weapons are antiquated. I don't think they would be in business very long if they tried to use it. Counter battery fire and air strikes would reduce them in a hurry.

North Korea's threat is that it would fire all that artillery at Seoul, which is in range.

I haven't seen a serious military commentator claim that North Korea's conventional arsenal is a threat to South Korea. The vast numbers of troops are not enough to counter South Korea's technical edge. The North could do some damage, (especially to the civilian population) but they couldn't win.

MattJ