Thanks for commenting in the thread Dave - your perspectives living there broadened my understanding of the region too! I appreciate insightful discussions like this.
Like Dave said, the US and China are a strange pair - I can't see any reason for the two to be agressive towards one another. On many, many levels the two help and support each other. I think the clash might come from supporting old and deep issues between China and neighbors in the region. I think the US and China get along as well as they do is because the US treats them with respect.
I find the region really interesting. China has a 5000+ year culture, where ours is a spit above 200 years. I wonder, if the American Culture lasts 5000 years - what might it become?
Gunnie
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Should US Forces Remain In Korea?
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2003 - 02:23 AM UTC
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2003 - 02:43 AM UTC
Dave/Gunnie--- I know that Dave is correct when he cites the law of economics as a bonding factor between the Nations. I appreciate that neither side completely trust the other and probably never will. However, as Dave correctly points out, there is little to be gained by antagonizing each other. Yet, there are serious talks about moving US troops further from the DMZ in Korea (almost a done deal) and placing another aircraft carrier in the Pacific. So everyone is talking but still carrying a big stick.
DJ
DJ
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2003 - 03:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Dave/Gunnie--- I know that Dave is correct when he cites the law of economics as a bonding factor between the Nations. I appreciate that neither side completely trust the other and probably never will. However, as Dave correctly points out, there is little to be gained by antagonizing each other. Yet, there are serious talks about moving US troops further from the DMZ in Korea (almost a done deal) and placing another aircraft carrier in the Pacific. So everyone is talking but still carrying a big stick.
DJ
I think this is because of the North Korean situation. I think all sides are taking them seriously. The US seriously wants North Korea contained. China seriously does not want the US striking that close to their borders. If the tables were turned and you could transpose Mexico in place of North Korea - I think the US would respond like China is presently.
For the US to move forces back away from the DMZ is actually a good sign towards trying to reduce tensions. However, moving a Carrier Battle Group closer is an expression and acknowledgement that the first move is going to be fully supported. If the North Koreans cease seriously threatening the DMZ with nuclear weapon(s) then perhaps the urgency for the Carrier Battle Group positioning becomes less acute. Right now, I think the air assets are to give quick-reaction capability for conducting preemptive deep strikes on nuclear processing sites - if tensions suddenly escalate to that level. I would be concerned more if forward basing of TR2 Reconnaissance Aircraft were moved back out of South Korea to Okinawa. That would be a sign of anticipated hostilities from my experience.
When I was stationed in the region - the principal fear was tactical use of nuclear weapons - on both sides early in a thrust through the DMZ. I don't think that fear has subsided since the basing of the MACE-B cruise missiles and Honest John rockets so long ago. We even had the Davy Crockett based there - though that is not talked about much. I tell you it scared the bejezzus out of me knowing that US forces on Okinawa are there to bolster the South Koreans and how fast things could escalate.
I think the tensions between the US and China stem from just what to do, who should do it, when, and ultimately how and who's responsible for the aftermath.
Have you noticed that the old thought of injecting money into the local economy is not suggested or seems to be taken seriously as a solution to the problem? It seems like that approach to foreign policy in general globally has waned. Maybe this helps explain an apparent lack of just knowing what to do to settle the problem - we're in undiscovered country on a United Nations scale in dealing with the issue.
Gunnie
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2003 - 05:41 AM UTC
This is an always overlooked aspect of American presence.....money infused into the economy of the host nation. Folks will get all annoyed at the Dirty American until we say "we're out of here." Whole new set of rules magically appears! We have given, for example, every indication that we will greatly diminish our presence in Germany. Now, the Germans are not so sure they want to see us move on. So, economics are, in my humble opinion, a driver behind any foreign poilcy moves.
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2003 - 05:54 AM UTC
Uh-huh - we want the American Money - just not the Americans... 
Overseas I encountered that mentality a lot. However, it quickly went away when you got to know a local person better. Not all Americans are poor ambassadors - but when they are bad - they excel at it.
I think in North Korea's situation they want the money more than the guarantee of "security" from the US attacking their country, though it doesn't sound as sensational on the World Stage. That's where I find the US stance interesting - is it an expression of that line from the top of my message - you ain't getting the US or it's money...
Gunnie
Overseas I encountered that mentality a lot. However, it quickly went away when you got to know a local person better. Not all Americans are poor ambassadors - but when they are bad - they excel at it.
I think in North Korea's situation they want the money more than the guarantee of "security" from the US attacking their country, though it doesn't sound as sensational on the World Stage. That's where I find the US stance interesting - is it an expression of that line from the top of my message - you ain't getting the US or it's money...
Gunnie
SS-74
Member Since: May 13, 2002
entire network: 3,271 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2003 - 05:54 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This is an always overlooked aspect of American presence.....money infused into the economy of the host nation. Folks will get all annoyed at the Dirty American until we say "we're out of here." Whole new set of rules magically appears! We have given, for example, every indication that we will greatly diminish our presence in Germany. Now, the Germans are not so sure they want to see us move on. So, economics are, in my humble opinion, a driver behind any foreign poilcy moves.
100% Agree. CLauswitz should write. Foreign Policy is the extension of favourable Trade...
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2003 - 01:06 PM UTC
Dave--- to study and discuss Clausewitz is for me an opportunity to gain more insight into how we as human act and react.
Good choice.
DJ
Good choice.
DJ
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 03:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Dave--- to study and discuss Clausewitz is for me an opportunity to gain more insight into how we as human act and react.
Good choice.
DJ
Ditto!
Gunnie
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 04:42 PM UTC
I'm glad I got into this thread so late. I would have shimed in with US needs to be in KOrea as deterent to invasion, not due to might, but fear of the rest of us showing up. But what I learned about the regioal attitudes from Dave was quite enlightening and educationally enriching to me
BSPRU
Member Since: March 13, 2002
entire network: 152 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 13, 2003 - 01:45 PM UTC
What about the "863" (hopefully I got the term right) crowd of Koreans? born in the 60's, graduated from college in the 80's and are now in their 30's. They seem to think that the American military is causing tension in Korea. My father fought in the Korean war and I was over there twice before I retired from the U.S. Army(infantry). We had discussed this before and maybe it is a time to pull back troops. I am an isolationist but I also realise that it didn't work to well in the past. The British were up against the same problem of committments all over the world in 1900 the height of their power and 45 yrs later had to downsize. Are we at that that smae turning point?
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, October 13, 2003 - 11:44 PM UTC
Quoted Text
What about the "863" (hopefully I got the term right) crowd of Koreans? born in the 60's, graduated from college in the 80's and are now in their 30's. They seem to think that the American military is causing tension in Korea. My father fought in the Korean war and I was over there twice before I retired from the U.S. Army(infantry). We had discussed this before and maybe it is a time to pull back troops. I am an isolationist but I also realise that it didn't work to well in the past. The British were up against the same problem of committments all over the world in 1900 the height of their power and 45 yrs later had to downsize. Are we at that that smae turning point?
Well, there is an interesting point to discuss. The proverbial "imperial overstretch." You can only go so far for so long with overseas ventures. Who ever though we would be in Afghanistan? Certainly, not I. Placing our forces at these various spots from the Sinai (yes, we are still doing that one) to Korea is straining. So, my question is what is our priority list? And, where is Korea on that list?
thanks
DJ
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 02:39 AM UTC
On a priority list - I'd say Korea stays in the top three for at least this decade. With our forces stretched thin because the size of our Armed Forces overall is low - I believe strategic planning dictates containment efforts at the source of the problem (overseas) on foreign soil now more than ever.
Gunnie
Gunnie
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 04:07 AM UTC
Quoted Text
On a priority list - I'd say Korea stays in the top three for at least this decade. With our forces stretched thin because the size of our Armed Forces overall is low - I believe strategic planning dictates containment efforts at the source of the problem (overseas) on foreign soil now more than ever.
Gunnie
Gunnie--- what are your other "TOP TEN?"
DJ
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 05:26 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Gunnie--- what are your other "TOP TEN?"
Okay - I feel like David Letterman here...
My Top Ten critical areas for US overseas deployments are not all trouble-spots today, but important locals for the country to pay attention to:
1. Iraq / Saudi Arabia - tie in importance short & long-term
2. South Korea
3. Afghanistan
4. Phillippines
5. Okinawa / Japan
6. Marshall Islands
7. Australia - primarily friendship and US Space Command assets
8. Cuba / Puerto Rico - tie in importance short & long-term
9. Diego Garcia
10. Germany
Gunnie
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 06:58 AM UTC
Gunnie--nice start and I trust other will pipe in on this one also. Here are my shots:
1. Iran
2. Iraq/Afghanistan
3. Syria
4. North Korea
5.Cuba
6.Israel
7. Australia (good choice, by the way)
8.Germany (let's leave the place)
9. Hungary (let's station forces there)
10 Panama (are we letting that go down hill fast)
Let's hear from others!
DJ
1. Iran
2. Iraq/Afghanistan
3. Syria
4. North Korea
5.Cuba
6.Israel
7. Australia (good choice, by the way)
8.Germany (let's leave the place)
9. Hungary (let's station forces there)
10 Panama (are we letting that go down hill fast)
Let's hear from others!
DJ
ponysoldier
Member Since: March 13, 2002
entire network: 223 Posts
KitMaker Network: 83 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 07:51 AM UTC
Hello All
Well here is my two cents worth. I must agree with gunnie on this. I give to agreement
to many of the other points written here.The Rok forces are tough front line troops
all the way through.But what should be remembered is that that china could throw
50-60 divisions into the mix. The ROK could not handle this not even with our
troops there. The best that could be hoped for would be the combined forces
could slow the attack until help came.
Well here is my two cents worth. I must agree with gunnie on this. I give to agreement
to many of the other points written here.The Rok forces are tough front line troops
all the way through.But what should be remembered is that that china could throw
50-60 divisions into the mix. The ROK could not handle this not even with our
troops there. The best that could be hoped for would be the combined forces
could slow the attack until help came.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 12:41 AM UTC
Your poiint has some validity, but I am not comvinced by your argument. My follow-on question would be: "why would the Chinese attack the South Koreans?"
DJ
DJ
ponysoldier
Member Since: March 13, 2002
entire network: 223 Posts
KitMaker Network: 83 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 07:48 AM UTC
DJ
Many of the reasons that china used to apply their forces into Korea, I think they would apply
again. Our advance into north korea threatened the border, also there is a very old
but active trade route that runs form the middle east through the gobi and into korea.
They felt this was a line of advance that could be used in a pincer movement,
combined with russian forces, therefore a threat to them. I think that the nut that
north korea has as a leader cannot be thought of as convenitional,in his thinking.
If and this is a big if , north korea has the bomb Im quite sure they will use it
This could threaten china in further. Really most of this is saving face for korea
the cease fire was put into place and still they could not bring south korea into
the fold .
ponysoldier
Many of the reasons that china used to apply their forces into Korea, I think they would apply
again. Our advance into north korea threatened the border, also there is a very old
but active trade route that runs form the middle east through the gobi and into korea.
They felt this was a line of advance that could be used in a pincer movement,
combined with russian forces, therefore a threat to them. I think that the nut that
north korea has as a leader cannot be thought of as convenitional,in his thinking.
If and this is a big if , north korea has the bomb Im quite sure they will use it
This could threaten china in further. Really most of this is saving face for korea
the cease fire was put into place and still they could not bring south korea into
the fold .
ponysoldier
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 03:53 AM UTC
Well, I appreciate the desire to have a buffer zone along the Manchurian Border, but the guy running the North is crazy not nuts. He knows the mere threat can get him money and influence. So, he will always threaten. Someday someone should call his bluff.
DJ
DJ
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 04:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Well, I appreciate the desire to have a buffer zone along the Manchurian Border, but the guy running the North is crazy not nuts. He knows the mere threat can get him money and influence. So, he will always threaten. Someday someone should call his bluff.
DJ
Yep DJ - I think that is the crux of the matter globally - fears of someone calling this guy's bluff.
I think he's no lunatic either - he's attempting (unsucessfully to date) to leverage the world community towards supporting his aims to extort money from wealthier countries (not just the US) to prop-up a stagnate regime via nuclear blackmail.
The big fear out there is not knowing when the NK crosses the line and the bluff is really called. The Chinese do not want even a limited nuclear exchange near their border - who in their right mind would? They're compelled to stay in the game as long as the nuclear poker hand is still being held. As soon as that card is called and played - the game ends. It is in NK's best interest not to play that hand because even they can't predict how the US will respond. For the first time since President Kennedy was in office, I have no trouble envisioning the US participating in a pre-emptive strike to destroy NK's trump card - or responding in kind tactically if that type of weapon is used against US forces there supporting SK. That in itself should be a pretty scary thought...
Gunnie
jimbrae
Member Since: April 23, 2003
entire network: 12,927 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,060 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 04:53 AM UTC
Every time the NK allow a 'new' round of talks to continue, the barrier is raised just a little higher, every time the demands just become that little bit more expensive...
Re. the original thread, the continued U.S. presence in Korea, a pull-back from the Korean peninsula would be, in my opinion, madness. If the unthinkable were to happen and the NKs decided to launch their 'war of liberation' (as is described by Pyongyang), even with the US forces in S.Korea, resupply and movement of reinforcements would become a nightmare. NK has improved is naval capacity considerably in the last 20 years, its primary mission would be the interdiction of US naval units operating in the Sea Of Japan, virtually impossible to acheive but it could become very bloody,very quickly.
Wher would the US reinforce from? Unlike the Gulf region, there are no PPFs in the area, this of course assumes that South Korea could not stop a large northern invasion and avoids the enormous US capacity to project airpower into the region. However it is on eof these 'what-if' scenarios which are just alittle too close for comfort...Jim
Re. the original thread, the continued U.S. presence in Korea, a pull-back from the Korean peninsula would be, in my opinion, madness. If the unthinkable were to happen and the NKs decided to launch their 'war of liberation' (as is described by Pyongyang), even with the US forces in S.Korea, resupply and movement of reinforcements would become a nightmare. NK has improved is naval capacity considerably in the last 20 years, its primary mission would be the interdiction of US naval units operating in the Sea Of Japan, virtually impossible to acheive but it could become very bloody,very quickly.
Wher would the US reinforce from? Unlike the Gulf region, there are no PPFs in the area, this of course assumes that South Korea could not stop a large northern invasion and avoids the enormous US capacity to project airpower into the region. However it is on eof these 'what-if' scenarios which are just alittle too close for comfort...Jim
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 05:11 AM UTC
Hey Jim - welcome to the thread! Fresh eyes - fresh thoughts!
US resupply would come from forward basing on Okinawa. USAF, USA, and USMC units can be deployed lightning-fast from Okinawa to South Korea. I remember being deployed, even in exercise, a few yawns and a stretch, and we were in theater prepared to go. If my being a USAF 'zoomie' had that experience, I anticipate the Marines and Army units moving that much faster...
Secondary bases likely to be used would include Diego Garcia (though more of a CENTCOM support point - I believe SE Asia would also be within the sphere of support), the US forces in mainland Japan, and assets moved from Hawaii and Alaska to Anderson AFB in Guam. These would probably be considered second-wave due to the longer transit time across the Pacific, but would go to Anderson AFB and Kadena AB (my old stomping ground) on Okinawa after the initial force response. Contentinal US forces would then be positioned in Alaska and Hawaii for a possible reinforcement.
Gunnie
US resupply would come from forward basing on Okinawa. USAF, USA, and USMC units can be deployed lightning-fast from Okinawa to South Korea. I remember being deployed, even in exercise, a few yawns and a stretch, and we were in theater prepared to go. If my being a USAF 'zoomie' had that experience, I anticipate the Marines and Army units moving that much faster...
Secondary bases likely to be used would include Diego Garcia (though more of a CENTCOM support point - I believe SE Asia would also be within the sphere of support), the US forces in mainland Japan, and assets moved from Hawaii and Alaska to Anderson AFB in Guam. These would probably be considered second-wave due to the longer transit time across the Pacific, but would go to Anderson AFB and Kadena AB (my old stomping ground) on Okinawa after the initial force response. Contentinal US forces would then be positioned in Alaska and Hawaii for a possible reinforcement.
Gunnie
jimbrae
Member Since: April 23, 2003
entire network: 12,927 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,060 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 05:35 AM UTC
Trouble is with PPF, it never received the congressional backing to actually cover all likely scenarios. Only in the Reagan era was the funding getting to reasonable levels. As I never went into the Korean situation as deep as I went (academically) into the Gulf region, I find the gaps somewhat frightening... As most of my work concentrated on PPF on Diego Garcia I never had much chance to explore what was happening in other (potentially explosive) regions such as the Korean peninsula. What is the current status on Guam? Obviously it doesn't have the importance as it had during Vietnam, or does it?
Ponysoldier, why would the ChiComs support the NKs with troops? A war in Korea would have terrible effects on Chinese 'engagement' with the west. Relations between Pyong Yang and Beijing are not at the cordial level they were 20 years ago. The 'Dear Leader' (he still using this dumb title?)
sees Beijing as having betrayed the fundamentalisms of communism. Nor does Kim Jong-Il have his old allies in the Soviet Politburo who could usually be relied on to provide weaponry at bargain-basement prices....Jim
Ponysoldier, why would the ChiComs support the NKs with troops? A war in Korea would have terrible effects on Chinese 'engagement' with the west. Relations between Pyong Yang and Beijing are not at the cordial level they were 20 years ago. The 'Dear Leader' (he still using this dumb title?)
sees Beijing as having betrayed the fundamentalisms of communism. Nor does Kim Jong-Il have his old allies in the Soviet Politburo who could usually be relied on to provide weaponry at bargain-basement prices....Jim
GunTruck
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 06:00 AM UTC
Well, the US appears to have drawn down on some Pacific Theatre PPF. Anderson AFB in Guam is a good example. The bomber and sea lane interdiction role that Guam figured in pretty heavily was cut back in the late 80's when I was in the military. The B-52's were moved back to North American basing(s). At about the same time, US presence in the Phillippines was drawn back as well.
One could say "in a pinch" PPF units could be redeployed to Guam, but that is also like saying that Vandenderg AFB could be quickly readied for Space Shuttle Operations. I also worked in USAF Systems Command/Space Command before leaving the service, and found the concept wishful thinking at best. Half of Clark AB was wiped out when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the late-80's/early-90's too. PPF there probably is out of the realm of possibility too - or at least a pale shade of what it might have been.
With all of this, Okinawa remains critically important for PPF. It has extensive facilities and proximity to SE Asia. It's ammunition storage area is the largest in the Pacific - it's immense. When I was a Security Policeman there patrolling, some told me it was the size of the city of Orlando, Florida. All I know is that you can drive all day through there and never see it all. I doubt in the three-plus years I spent there that I saw it all.
Other than Okinawa, I don't think there's really a better option for Pacific PPF. Guadalcanal still has Henderson Field up and active. When I went there it was spooky - like an island lost in time. Your imagination could run wild there. Henderson Field isn't really setup for PPF either. US Army bases in the Marshall Island chain, Kwajalein Atoll for example, just is big enough for a few hundred men and a couple of sea turtles...
Hawaii and Alaska are positioning points - with challenging transit times...
Gunnie
One could say "in a pinch" PPF units could be redeployed to Guam, but that is also like saying that Vandenderg AFB could be quickly readied for Space Shuttle Operations. I also worked in USAF Systems Command/Space Command before leaving the service, and found the concept wishful thinking at best. Half of Clark AB was wiped out when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the late-80's/early-90's too. PPF there probably is out of the realm of possibility too - or at least a pale shade of what it might have been.
With all of this, Okinawa remains critically important for PPF. It has extensive facilities and proximity to SE Asia. It's ammunition storage area is the largest in the Pacific - it's immense. When I was a Security Policeman there patrolling, some told me it was the size of the city of Orlando, Florida. All I know is that you can drive all day through there and never see it all. I doubt in the three-plus years I spent there that I saw it all.
Other than Okinawa, I don't think there's really a better option for Pacific PPF. Guadalcanal still has Henderson Field up and active. When I went there it was spooky - like an island lost in time. Your imagination could run wild there. Henderson Field isn't really setup for PPF either. US Army bases in the Marshall Island chain, Kwajalein Atoll for example, just is big enough for a few hundred men and a couple of sea turtles...
Hawaii and Alaska are positioning points - with challenging transit times...
Gunnie
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 07:28 AM UTC
Guys--- Reinforcements for Korea and power projection in the Pacific has the Navy moving another carrier into the Pacific. Same trouble as you enumerate....where do you put it? Don't forget a carrier comes with a surface action group, logistical base, air wing (and associated support structure) along with families. Positioning would affect our relations with North Korea andChina. So, where would you put another carrier?
DJ
DJ
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.