Skip to comments.United States sending more troops and tanks to South Korea
Posted on 01/08/2014 6:43:54 PM PST by Redcitizen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday it will send 800 more soldiers and about 40 Abrams main battle tanks and other armored vehicles to South Korea next month as part of a military rebalance to East Asia after more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The battalion of troops and M1A2 tanks and about 40 Bradley fighting vehicles from the 1st U.S. Cavalry Division based at Fort Hood, Texas, will begin a nine-month deployment in South Korea on February 1.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I’m guessing the Reuters reporter has no idea how small a battalion is.
Was this Biden’s idea? Four decades of Foreign Policy expertise is nothing to sneeze at.
Maybe the idea was originated by Mrs. Bill Clinton, the most admired woman in America?
This will all become unnecessary once Dennis Rodman becomes the new North Korean First Lady.
That’s par for the course for most reporters.
Sounds like a move by General Wesley Clark, the leader of the Waco burnout.
They do not need more US military, what they need is to be allowed to buy more advanced weapons - treated like an actual ally for once
Those Abrams tanks won’t do anything to deter the dug-in NK artillery that can level Seoul in a matter of minutes.
They could pay for the costs of sending additional troops too. It’s not like we have a lot of cash laying around.
One of the first things I did when I was stationed in Korea was go to a briefing. In the briefing we essentially learned we were cannon fodder. Both sides had so many rockets and artillery guns pointed at each other...any war would start out with a thirty mile wide stripe of destruction across the width of the peninsula.
Several years later, Rumsfeld pulled some of the troops out of Korea...without much fanfare. It was a wise move - we can deter the Norks with our ability to bring men and tanks, instead of supplying them with targets for a surprise attack. And of course our air power is quite a deterent.
Rumsfeld’s wise policy seems to have been reversed.
I have always wondered what is the plan to deal with all that artillery? Tactical nucs maybe?
Hope we have the hardware to spare.
“Rumsfelds wise policy seems to have been reversed.”
The military is scaling down everything; I’d imagine this move is to simply prevent hundreds more troops from ending up on unemployment. There will be a staggered downsizing to reduce the impact.
How about an operation similar to archlight using MOAB’s instead of 500 lb ‘ers? I’m pretty sure most of the artillery men wouldn’t be up to firing anything.
I just wonder how long they would be firing before they are taken out? I would suspect long enough to do some really serious damage.
I’ve always wondered why they built/rebuilt the city of Seoul within range of that deadly artillery.
Everybody’s got to be somewhere.
Counter-battery fire and air strikes will destroy much of it. According to spies who have left NK, they really don’t have the ability to spin up a major offensive operation and no longer feel they can win a war with SK. So any attack just ends the party for The Party.
So why bother?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.