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

To: TigerLikesRooster
Thank you for that comprehensive history which fills in some of the gaps in my understanding.

What is your recommendation concerning the exposure of our troops along the DMZ? Should they be pulled back out of the range of artillery in the initial onslaught? Should they be withdrawn from the peninsular altogether? Should they be left in place as a necessary tripwire?

What about the South Koreans, are they going to pay their own way, ensure their own defense, contribute to the general coalition that should be built to contain China?


9 posted on 08/24/2015 5:31:54 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: nathanbedford
Relocation away from DMZ has been going on for a while. In time, they may only leave some token presence behind. Anyway, I heard that is the plan.

I am not sure how the cost-sharing deal would work out.

One complicating factor is that U.S. put leash on S. Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear program. If S. Korea is asked to pay the full expense, they probably want those restriction to be lifted. Especially ballistic missile program. Currently their ballistic missile range is capped at 800km, IIRC.

13 posted on 08/24/2015 5:51:25 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster (The way to crush the bourgeois is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

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