The US and Korea

[RomaVicta 29971]

On the Trump thread we're getting into what it could mean if the current communication between North and South Korea lead to a request that the Americans leave South Korea.

I'm surprised to see so many people stating that we would suffer geopolitically and this would be a victory for China.

I've wanted out of Korea for a long time because of the cost and needless risk of the US being pulled into another war on the Asian mainland. S. Korea can arm and defend itself. China will grow in power whether we have an army in Korea or not.

I'm not deeply educated about this. I'd like to hear the case for keeping US armed forces in Korea.

[GhostRider 169]

If we were to pull out of S Korea, I believe the Norks would invade the very next day.

[David Dennison 18945]

3 minutes ago, GhostRider said:

If we were to pull out of S Korea, I believe the Norks would invade the very next day.

Which is why we probably aren't leaving, which means there probably isn't going to be a deal.

[RomaVicta 29971]

Suppose they did. Then what? Why is that an American concern?

I don't see the advantage for the N. Koreans to smash S. Korea in order to conquer it. What do they get? Under their system it would just be more mouths to feed and an overwhelming expense of rebuilding the conquered territory. Not dissimilar to what the Soviets would have ended up with had they rolled the tanks into Western Europe. You destroy the cake.

I don't think defending S. Korea is a valid mission for American soldiers. It's no longer even arguable that we would be stopping the worldwide menace of communism which would eventually show up on our own doorstep.

I like Korea and the Koreans that I've met. I don't know that I want to consign American soldiers to die for them.

[David Dennison 18945]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Suppose they did. Then what? Why is that an American concern?

I don't see the advantage for the N. Koreans to smash S. Korea in order to conquer it. What do they get? Under their system it would just be more mouths to feed and an overwhelming expense of rebuilding the conquered territory. Not dissimilar to what the Soviets would have ended up with had they rolled the tanks into Western Europe. You destroy the cake.

I don't think defending S. Korea is a valid mission for American soldiers. It's no longer even arguable that we would be stopping the worldwide menace of communism which would eventually show up on our own doorstep.

I like Korea and the Koreans that I've met. I don't know that I want to consign American soldiers to die for them.

It might be a good time to brush up on Sino-Japanese relations, too.

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

While we're at it, why was war in Europe our concern? We should've just let Hitler have Europe and let Nazi Germany be the sole nuclear power on the globe. 

[SquishMitten 10425]

^^ Well, there was that little dust up in Hawaii...

[Pods 7586]

3 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

^^ Well, there was that little dust up in Hawaii...

When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. #neverforget.

[RomaVicta 29971]

So, no real answers? Is the question really that stupid?

[David Dennison 18945]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

So, no real answers? Is the question really that stupid?

If the question is what does it matter if we leave South Korea, the answer is that it gives China more power in the region and weakens our influence in the Pacific. It also makes Japan nervous.

[RomaVicta 29971]

Thanks for responding.

How is an army in Korea constraining China's emergent power? How does that army give us influence in the entire Pacific?

These sound like old assumptions to me.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Thanks for responding.

How is an army in Korea constraining China's emergent power? How does that army give us influence in the entire Pacific?

These sound like old assumptions to me.

Do you think if China had a bunch of bases and a massive military presence plus nukes stationed in Brownsville or Monterrey, it would increase or decrease their influence in North America?

[Pods 7586]

They act as a speed bump to potential Chinese aggression, same as our troops in Poland/Baltics do to Russia. 30,000 troops isn't going to meaningfully change the war, but it does commit us to fighting that war and acts as a brake on their aggression in the region.

South Korea is well positioned with respect to North Korea for this, but not really with respect to China.

N Korea and Manchuria are also easily fortified too, so that limits the value of S Korea as a potential Asian mainland invasion point for a conflict with either China or Russia.  

If the issue of potential North Korean aggression is resolved, there are probably better places to deploy those troops regionally to accomplish the other goals.

Shit, maybe we should just start making our own islands in the South China Sea.  

 

 

[Chad Fuck 17743]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

[Equinox 95]

My dad didn't join the Marines and fight in Korea just so we could get out later.

 

#TheseColorsDon'tRun

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

29 minutes ago, Pods said:

They act as a speed bump to potential Chinese aggression, same as our troops in Poland/Baltics do to Russia. 30,000 troops isn't going to meaningfully change the war, but it does commit us to fighting that war and acts as a brake on their aggression in the region.

South Korea is well positioned with respect to North Korea for this, but not really with respect to China.

N Korea and Manchuria are also easily fortified too, so that limits the value of S Korea as a potential Asian mainland invasion point for a conflict with either China or Russia.  

If the issue of potential North Korean aggression is resolved, there are probably better places to deploy those troops regionally to accomplish the other goals.

Shit, maybe we should just start making our own islands in the South China Sea.  

 

 

To add, if there is a large war in that hemisphere, our bases help for logistics reasons. Our homeland is relativity geographically isolated so if we needed to go to war with China or Russia, it's an advantage to have resources staged closer to the action than having to move it from Hawaii and Alaska. 

[InkaUtexas 26072]

1 hour ago, Pods said:

Shit, maybe we should just start making our own islands in the South China Sea.  

 

 

They gotta make em cuz we got the real ones. 

 

 

[RayDog 682]

I posted this to the Trump thread but it belongs here too. The collapse of the NK nuclear test side led to Kim's change in tactics.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2143171/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-has-collapsed-and-may-be-why-kim-jong-un 

[David Dennison 18945]

1 minute ago, RayDog said:

I posted this to the Trump thread but it belongs here too. The collapse of the NK nuclear test side led to Kim's change in tactics.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2143171/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-has-collapsed-and-may-be-why-kim-jong-un 

Wait. I was told it was because The Donald used his super scary words or something.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

So, no real answers? Is the question really that stupid?

What does it show to the rest of the world if we abandoned a power that we created in the Republic of Korea? South Korea militaristically and culturally is largely the result of the United States. We can't abandon them just like we can't abandon Estonia or Israel. 

[Caracara 41]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

On the Trump thread we're getting into what it could mean if the current communication between North and South Korea lead to a request that the Americans leave South Korea.

I'm surprised to see so many people stating that we would suffer geopolitically and this would be a victory for China.

I've wanted out of Korea for a long time because of the cost and needless risk of the US being pulled into another war on the Asian mainland. S. Korea can arm and defend itself. China will grow in power whether we have an army in Korea or not.

I'm not deeply educated about this. I'd like to hear the case for keeping US armed forces in Korea.

What will change, is life and opportunity for the pathetic North Koreans. And they will give up their nukes.  What won't change is our massive military presence on the borders of China and Russia.

[David Dennison 18945]

18 minutes ago, Caracara said:

What will change, is life and opportunity for the pathetic North Koreans. And they will give up their nukes.  What won't change is our massive military presence on the borders of China and Russia.

They aren't going to give up their nuclear weapons. 

[Jhawkmvp 1489]

2 hours ago, GhostRider said:

If we were to pull out of S Korea, I believe the Norks would invade the very next day.

This is wrong. I used to believe this too, before I lived in South Korea. I have talked to U.S. soldiers in SK about this issue. They told me the US remained here to keep South Korea from invading/bombing the North when they provoke the South, which NK is fond of doing from time to time. See here and here as examples. Before they had nukes, North Korea basically admitted that if a war occurred they would do as much artillery damage to Seoul as they could since that is basically all they could do in a conventional conflict. With nukes the best they could do would be mutually assured destruction.

North Korea has little fuel and outdated military equipment. They have troubles even meeting the basic needs of their citizens. They have pretty much zero surpluses of anything.  They have a large army, put how well did that serve Iraq (5th largest army in the world at the time) when they faced a modernized army and Iraq had enough fuel for their vehicles.  South Korea has a modern military. They are one of the 10 biggest military spenders in the world. They can defend themselves. If we leave they will quickly develop their own nukes. Followed by Japan doing so as well.

We remain to try to keep things on an even keel, or at least we did before Trump. NK currently would get crushed in a conventional war with South Korea. It is not 1950 where the North had all the industry. Nukes are a way to ensure NK's survival long-term, as even though they would lose any conflict, they could cause large scale damage to many countries which the US and it's allies would want to avoid (if NK can get their rockets to work correctly). NK won't give them up easily.  The unsaid reason we want NK to drop their program is to keep Asia from a nuclear arms race. If they don't disarm, South Korea and Japan will quickly develop their own. Politicians in both countries are starting to call for their development. This is why China would prefer NK disarm as well. If they don't, China will gain two more countries with nukes on their doorstep.

[Caracara 41]

4 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

....South Korea militaristically and culturally is largely the result of the United States. ...

So is North Korea.  We wanted a boogieman in the region so we could be in the region.

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

No one boogies like the North Koreans. 

[Caracara 41]

hermit nation shuffle

[David Dennison 18945]

12 minutes ago, Caracara said:

So is North Korea.  We wanted a boogieman in the region so we could be in the region.

We sacrificed 36,000 dead and 100,000 injured to have a boogieman in the region?

Harsh.

[Caracara 41]

thoughtful take.

What's happening now could have been done before. 

[David Dennison 18945]

3 minutes ago, Caracara said:

thoughtful take.

What's happening now could have been done before. 

What's happening now has been done before. A few times, actually. 

[Caracara 41]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What's happening now has been done before. A few times, actually. 

sure thing.   This isn't a case of a new-style president from outside the political strata, ensconced and backed by the military and military intel, using American muscle to destroy worn out constructs that only served the worst kind of global parasites.  

[blackmarketbaby 118]

 

[David Dennison 18945]

2 minutes ago, Caracara said:

sure thing.   This isn't a case of a new-style president from outside the political strata, ensconced and backed by the military and military intel, using American muscle to destroy worn out constructs that only served the worst kind of global parasites.  

The best deals.

[Caracara 41]

Look for a Kanye tour in denuclearized NK within a year.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

1 hour ago, Caracara said:

So is North Korea.  We wanted a boogieman in the region so we could be in the region.

In a way sure our direct policies have harmed DPRK and we have advocated for their isolationism. I don't know what that has to do with our support for a stalwart ally. We can debate whether we should have assisted In 1950 all we want, but we did and we have to own up if ever required.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

In a way sure our direct policies have harmed DPRK and we have advocated for their isolationism. I don't know what that has to do with our support for a stalwart ally. We can debate whether we should have assisted In 1950 all we want, but we did and we have to own up if ever required.

Go home Simon 

[Caracara 41]

Just now, SimonBolivar said:

In a way sure our direct policies have harmed DPRK and we have advocated for their isolationism. I don't know what that has to do with our support for a stalwart ally. We can debate whether we should have assisted In 1950 all we want, but we did and we have to own up if ever required.

I'm assuming that this is not "history repeating itself" and that NK is not playing dotard for a fool.   If that's the case, then you have to wonder how this was achieved so quickly, and why it wasn't before.   I think to some extent, we've been sold a story just like the North Korean peasants have.  Maybe a lot of people have been profiting mightily off the status quo.   Brennan and Clapper make it quite obvious that their crony CIA hates Trump.  Our generals and soldiers do not hate him.   He's going to romp  in foreign policy.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Assumptions lead to

[zork 629]

Somebody make that blinking avatar go away.  aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Die off fucker

[RomaVicta 29971]

31 minutes ago, Caracara said:

  I think to some extent, we've been sold a story just like the North Korean peasants have.  Maybe a lot of people have been profiting mightily off the status quo.  

Now we're cooking in here. I think there substance to the above statements. Axis of Evil comes to mind when I think of the government creating a boogie man. We've got into the nasty habit of calling any opponent the next Hitler, a madman!, and simplifying conflict into a third rate western movie.

Quote

I don't know what that has to do with our support for a stalwart ally. We can debate whether we should have assisted In 1950 all we want, but we did and we have to own up if ever required.

The notion mentioned above about how we have "own up" for our "stalwart ally" is the kind of schoolyard metaphor for the real world that gets us into so much trouble. Sure we should stick with our allies, but the conversation about the placement of an army in N. Korea doesn't stop there. It just starts there.

Kim is a brutal autocrat who heads a sick national cult. Why do we care so much about this particular brutal autocrat? These guys are all over the place.

The case about loss of American influence has substance, but I think our influence is waning anyway. Further, is the army the way we want to wield influence? Does an army/navy/air force base in a foreign land generate a lot of love from the populace? Seems like a lot of people are glad to see us go. And, again, we're running up a huge debt trying to maintain a military posture that dates to the 1950s.

I think we need to revisit our assumptions about our responsibilities to the region and everywhere else. Trump talked about that, but I really don't think he has the intelligence or grasp to do much other than fire up the yokels and insult our international friends. 

 

[Caracara 41]

This is Korea. For the fun of it you could look at the world scene as a tussle between the American military and the alphabet agencies.  Neocrooks and spooks have been calling the shots on military matters since papa Bush. Maybe the NK royal family got security and help and assurances.  These generals are sick of shit like that, maybe.  Groomed Obama was CIA all the way.  Trump has the Military.  One side has the media/deepstate and is invested in corruption all over the globe. The other side has the muscle, and Trump telling grateful foreign leaders there's a new straight-shooter in town. Surly there are some folks out there who are sick of the sneaky double dealing cia. How many dictators have they used then set up for a war?  I can think of 3 without trying, since Papa Bush. One side set up global rackets and maintained the status quo.  The other side gonna shake the table.  Just a fun way to look it at.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

2 minutes ago, Caracara said:

I can think of 3 without trying, since Papa Bush.

Let's hear it. Hash tag if you must

[Caracara 41]

Noreiga, Quafaffi, Huesein.  Pardon the spelling. All CIA assets.  until they weren't

Edited April 28, 2018 by Caracara

[Caracara 41]

31 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Now we're cooking in here. I think there substance to the above statements. Axis of Evil comes to mind when I think of the government creating a boogie man. We've got into the nasty habit of calling any opponent the next Hitler, a madman!, and simplifying conflict into a third rate western movie.

The notion mentioned above about how we have "own up" for our "stalwart ally" is the kind of schoolyard metaphor for the real world that gets us into so much trouble. Sure we should stick with our allies, but the conversation about the placement of an army in N. Korea doesn't stop there. It just starts there.

Kim is a brutal autocrat who heads a sick national cult. Why do we care so much about this particular brutal autocrat? These guys are all over the place.

The case about loss of American influence has substance, but I think our influence is waning anyway. Further, is the army the way we want to wield influence? Does an army/navy/air force base in a foreign land generate a lot of love from the populace? Seems like a lot of people are glad to see us go. And, again, we're running up a huge debt trying to maintain a military posture that dates to the 1950s.

I think we need to revisit our assumptions about our responsibilities to the region and everywhere else. Trump talked about that, but I really don't think he has the intelligence or grasp to do much other than fire up the yokels and insult our international friends. 

 

He was born into it, and now possibly, Trump has cleared a path for him to be, to his people, everything he's been built up to be, the savior who gets them off the pigeon and grass diet, and gets them cell phones. Maybe dotard convinced Kim the old deals are done and the old bullies are out.  But he no longer has coup-protection, and the back-channels to resources are cut.

[Caracara 41]

Tim Shorrock‏ @TimothyS

 

 

 

 

Replying to @chrislhayes @MSNBC

I predict Moon & Kim will jointly announce a roadmap to end the Korean War and create a peace process with the US in which NK can eventually denuclearize. Trump will build on that by taking steps to convince NK the US has abandoned its hostile policy & normalizing relations.

6:06 PM - 23 Apr 2018 from Washington, DC

[blackmarketbaby 118]

NK BLEW UP MOUNTAINS

The Shoshone didn't give up

Get bent

[HtownHorn 14763]

I would prefer an isolationist policy, but there is no way it will ever happen. We've tried that before, but would get pulled into another huge war on that side of the world. I think our military bases serve as a small deterrent from hopefully anything escalating to a full out multi-country war. 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

 You lost. Not sure why you don't get this. Keep you nuclear waste out of Nevada

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

From talking to a Korean-American friend, who has worked over there for Samsung in recent years, most of the SK people under 70 want us out of there. They believe they can go it alone. He characterized the South Koreans who wave American flags and love our presence there as the equivalent of redneck Trumpkins here, made worse by the fact that they are supporting what kind of amounts to a foreign occupation.

Which it kind of is. My son is stationed over there, and said that part of our mission there -- in addition to the obvious one: staving off a Nork / Chinese invasion -- is to quell a sudden rebellion of the South Koreans, in the very unlikely event they demand immediate reunification with the north. We don't want them making that decision for us. 

[RomaVicta 29971]

5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

From talking to a Korean-American friend, who has worked over there for Samsung in recent years, most of the SK people under 70 want us out of there. They believe they can go it alone. He characterized the South Koreans who wave American flags and love our presence there as the equivalent of redneck Trumpkins here, made worse by the fact that they are supporting what kind of amounts to a foreign occupation.

I was in Germany back in the 80s and asked some of the Germans I met how they viewed the American military presence. They thought occupation was part of the reason we were still there and resented that part of it. They didn't hate Americans or the servicemen there, they just had the feeling you expect from a prosperous, proud people with a foreign army within their borders.