Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

United States sending more troops and tanks to South Korea
Reuters ^ | 1-8-2014 | author unknown

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Japan; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Russia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: china; japan; military; northkorea; republicofkorea; russia; waronterror
I don't always shoot NK's, but when I do I use Dos AK's.
1 posted on 01/08/2014 6:43:54 PM PST by Redcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

I’m guessing the Reuters reporter has no idea how small a battalion is.


2 posted on 01/08/2014 6:49:53 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (A courageous man finds a way, an ordinary man finds an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

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?


3 posted on 01/08/2014 6:52:14 PM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

This will all become unnecessary once Dennis Rodman becomes the new North Korean First Lady.


4 posted on 01/08/2014 6:52:45 PM PST by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

That’s par for the course for most reporters.


5 posted on 01/08/2014 7:08:43 PM PST by Redcitizen (Never bring a tank to a Chuck Norris fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Redcitizen.


6 posted on 01/08/2014 7:32:21 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

Sounds like a move by General Wesley Clark, the leader of the Waco burnout.


7 posted on 01/08/2014 7:56:08 PM PST by batterycommander (a little more rubble, a lot less trouble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

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


8 posted on 01/08/2014 7:58:13 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

Those Abrams tanks won’t do anything to deter the dug-in NK artillery that can level Seoul in a matter of minutes.


9 posted on 01/08/2014 8:11:37 PM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

They could pay for the costs of sending additional troops too. It’s not like we have a lot of cash laying around.


10 posted on 01/08/2014 8:19:25 PM PST by Redcitizen (Never bring a tank to a Chuck Norris fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

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.


11 posted on 01/08/2014 10:38:50 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

12 posted on 01/08/2014 10:50:48 PM PST by JoeProBono (SOME IMAGES MAY BE DISTURBING VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Those Abrams tanks won’t do anything to deter the dug-in NK artillery that can level Seoul in a matter of minutes.

I have always wondered what is the plan to deal with all that artillery? Tactical nucs maybe?

13 posted on 01/08/2014 11:50:51 PM PST by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Veteran, 70-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

Hope we have the hardware to spare.


14 posted on 01/09/2014 12:27:17 AM PST by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

“Rumsfeld’s 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.


15 posted on 01/09/2014 4:00:00 AM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

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.


16 posted on 01/09/2014 4:10:42 AM PST by Woodman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Woodman
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.

17 posted on 01/09/2014 4:38:43 AM PST by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Veteran, 70-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

I’ve always wondered why they built/rebuilt the city of Seoul within range of that deadly artillery.


18 posted on 01/09/2014 5:02:45 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

Everybody’s got to be somewhere.


19 posted on 01/09/2014 5:06:01 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

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?


20 posted on 01/09/2014 5:10:04 AM PST by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson