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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Would Send 690,000 Troops to Korea If War Breaks Out: Report
Yonhap News Worldservice (S Korea) ^

Posted on 12/27/2002 12:37:59 PM PST by RCW2001

Seoul, Dec. 27 (Yonhap) -- The United States would deploy some 690,000 troops to augment the 37,000-strong American military presence already here if war should break out on the peninsula, a Defense Ministry report showed Friday.

   The augmented forces would comprise of Army divisions, carrier battle groups with highly-advanced fighters, tactical fighter wings, and marine expeditionary forces in Okinawa and on the U.S. mainland, according to the "1998-2002 Defense Policy." The ministry published the report instead of a white paper.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-182 next last

1 posted on 12/27/2002 12:37:59 PM PST by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
This would require conscription...
2 posted on 12/27/2002 12:40:15 PM PST by Dirk McQuickly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
To say we're going to be stretched thin, is an understatement.
3 posted on 12/27/2002 12:40:17 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dirk McQuickly
We're going to need about 100,000 in Iraq for occupation duty, most of the National Guard here at home for Homeland Security, 15,000 in Afghanistan, plus our Balkan deployments. We're screwed unless we restart the draft. Problem is, I think most of our young people will run for Mexico and Canada if the draft is restarted.
4 posted on 12/27/2002 12:42:33 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
interesting...
5 posted on 12/27/2002 12:42:38 PM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Is it possible that this response is merely one of the many scenarios "gamed" out by the Pentagon as possible choices by the President?
6 posted on 12/27/2002 12:42:38 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
If this was published in the time frame of 1998-2002, it's mostly irrelevant. Rumsfeld advocates a lighter more deadly force based on technology and special forces. We would certainly need to beef up the troop presence, but that number is a little high. Then again, a million man standing army has been know to require super-size troop deployments...
7 posted on 12/27/2002 12:44:04 PM PST by Dirk McQuickly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Problem is, I think most of our young people will run for Mexico and Canada if the draft is restarted

All they have to do is to start recalling all Army and Marines who have left the service in the last several years (from Clinton's B$ leadership). They'll get the number they need.

8 posted on 12/27/2002 12:44:06 PM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Found a bit more on this "report"...

No more 'main enemy' in defense ministry text

by Kim Min-seok
December 28, 2002


The Ministry of National Defense yesterday published a report that substitutes for the controversial defense white paper that was withdrawn earlier this year. The report discusses Korean defense policies from 1998 to 2002.

The biannual white paper has discussed Korea's current defense posture; this year's paper was withheld because of North Korean complaints about earlier use of the term "main enemy" to refer to the North. This report omits the controversial term as it summarizes the defense policies of the Kim Dae-jung administration.

"We decided not to use the term because we value harmony between the North and South," an official at the ministry explained. But the report does not let the North off the hook entirely. "North Korea continues to enhance its military power, and there always exists the possibility of a provocation, for which the South should be fully prepared," one section of the report says.

The document boasts of progress the Korean armed forces have made in such areas as computerization of military information and the reorganization of the structure of Korea's forces. It also mentions the darker side of military life; it discusses an armed robbery committed by a military officer and notes that such cases have undermined public trust in the military.

The report also discusses the military capability of the United States Forces Korea and says in a crisis, a fleet of aircraft carriers and an additional 690,000 U.S. soldiers would be available for combat.

Source

9 posted on 12/27/2002 12:45:31 PM PST by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
One thing to consider is if China gets involved. They could be backing N. Korea to start the whole mess and planning to strike at Taiwan and the Sprately Islands.
If the US gets stretched too thin, it's time for the nukes.
10 posted on 12/27/2002 12:46:40 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dirk McQuickly
I will go...Trading has actually gotten mundane...
11 posted on 12/27/2002 12:47:14 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Draft Riots took place during the opening stages of the American Revolution, too. We'll always have them. The number would be higher than ever, but the media will hold them up as sensitive, loving people in need of a warm blanket and a pair of Nikes.
12 posted on 12/27/2002 12:47:31 PM PST by Dirk McQuickly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
I don't believe we are going to send 690,000 troops for a minute. Do you realise how many troops that is? Nonetheless, just the thought of that should tone-down North Korea's reterict.
13 posted on 12/27/2002 12:48:24 PM PST by rs79bm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
We could never fight a two front war w/out recalling ALL of the reserves and instituting a draft. I don't think we could get enough troops to SK in time to prevent the fall of Seoul either. They should move all those stupid Korean anti-U.S. types to the front lines if war does break out.
14 posted on 12/27/2002 12:48:27 PM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
I think if the armed forces needed that many, lines would form at all recruitment offices [outside liberal la la land] Monday morning.

Military authorities would have to pick and choose, and as poster above says, many would be persons who served recently offering to go back onto active duty.

Liberals make a big noise, but are not really very numerous. I don't think it would TAKE 690,000-- more like a tenth or a sixth of that, but if it DID take the larger number, they would come right out of the wood work, no need at all for the draft.

15 posted on 12/27/2002 12:49:31 PM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Our citizens couldn't run to Mexico. They don't allow illegal immigration.
16 posted on 12/27/2002 12:49:55 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Bump.
17 posted on 12/27/2002 12:50:03 PM PST by k2blader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Right you are...however, consider....If PRC decided to make a move on Taiwan when we are occupied with Iraq..does it make sense to focus US attention, and forces on that theater?..I guess all the "assumptions" being made about different scenarios FIRST have to evaluate two concepts:<> 1. Are Dear Leader and the rest of the DNK bosses sane?

2. How much, if any, influence or control does PRC have over the DRNK?

18 posted on 12/27/2002 12:52:33 PM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
I believe that WW3 started on September 11, 2001.

Did many people know when WW2 started? I don't think so. It didn't start on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Nor did it start on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Most people in the know (like Winston Churchill) realized that WW2 started way before then. When the Allies refused to enforce the conditions of the 1918 Armistice and allowed Germany to rebuild its strength, the die was cast for another world war. By 1933, WW2 had begun and was inevitable and unstoppable. Yet it was still possible at that time for the Allies to prevent the mass carnage that eventually took place by defeating Germany before it could grow much stronger.

I believe September 11, 2001 set in motion the unstoppable events that are beginning to occur right now. If we act now, we can still prevent the worst of it. If we waffle and attempt to negotiate our way out of it, our enemies will grow stronger and we will only ensure a larger and more deadlier war later on.

19 posted on 12/27/2002 12:52:52 PM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: Dog
ping
21 posted on 12/27/2002 12:53:33 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
nkorea sent scuds to iraq---death wish!
22 posted on 12/27/2002 12:54:59 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Right on. If we all took a quick tour of Hell, we could ask Neville Chamberlain, by appeasing evil up front how many lives did you cost? Answer: Millions.
23 posted on 12/27/2002 12:55:13 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
We're screwed unless we restart the draft. Problem is, I think most of our young people will run for Mexico and Canada if the draft is restarted.

It's not just the young people. 50% of the population does not want to fight against our enemies. I am 22, so if there is a draft, I will go. I saw the World Trade Center collapse up close and I'll try my best to prevent my city from getting nuked.

24 posted on 12/27/2002 12:55:37 PM PST by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Maybe that would be a fair trade for all of the Mexican people who have crossed the border into the USA.
25 posted on 12/27/2002 12:57:27 PM PST by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Bwahahahahahahaha....

We are asking German troops to guard our bases in Germany while we are away tending to Saddam. What a laugh.

26 posted on 12/27/2002 12:57:31 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Check out this thread currently running...mentions this 690,000 number

What A New War in Korea Might Look Like

Phase 3 US Counterattack

The US plans are based on the belief that the North Koreans would not be successful in consolidating their gains around Seoul and would be pushed back across the DMZ -- though the plans assume the North may break through the DMZ in places. A critical issue is strategic warning of unambiguous signs that North Korea is preparing an attack. The warning time has reportedly been shortened from about ten days to about three days as North Korea has covered its military activities.

The United States and ROK have developed as series of plans to counter a potential DPRK attack. The first plan would be a preemptive strike against DPRK positions to counter an emanate North Korean offensive. Likely targets in a preemptive attack are likely to be artillery positions and bombers before they could be activated. Under this plan, the ROK and the United States, both must agree that a DPRK attack is eminent and that a preemptive strike is necessary.

The second plan would go into effect following a North Korea attack. Since the late 90’s the United States has developed OPLAN 5027, which includes defense of the southern peninsula as well as direct assaults against North Korean targets beyond the DMZ and “defeating them in detail”. This “defeat in detail” is said to include provisions to seize Pyongyang and instituted regime change.

In these provisions, the United States would attempt to bring roughly half of its combat force to reinforce forces already in place. According to the 04 December 2000 South Korean Defense Ministry White Paper, the United States would deploy up to 690,000 troops 160 Navy ships and 1,600 aircraft deployed from the U.S. within 90 days on the Korean peninsula if a new war breaks out.

The U.S.-ROK defense plan would be shaped not only by the threat but also by the mountainous terrain. Korea is commonly regarded as rugged infantry terrain that invites neither mobile ground warfare nor heavy air bombardment, but North Korea has assembled large armored forces that are critical to exploiting breakthroughs, and these forces would pass down narrow corridors that are potential killing zones for U.S. airpower. U.S.-ROK forces would conduct a vigorous forward defense aimed at protecting Seoul. Their campaign would be dominated by combined-arms ground battles waged with infantry, artillery, and armor. U.S. air and naval forces would conduct close air support, interdiction, and deep strike missions. After Phase 1, U.S.-ROK operations in Phase 2 would probably focus on seizing key terrain, inflicting additional casualties on enemy forces, and rebuffing further attacks. Phase 3, to start when the U.S. ground buildup was complete and ROK forces were replenished would be a powerful counteroffensive aimed at restoring the ROK's borders and destroying the DPRK's military power.

A major air campaign against northern forces would be required before the counteroffensive could begin. A US Marine Expeditionary Force (in division strength) and the 82nd Air Assault Division, along with ROK divisions, would launch an overland offensive north toward Wonsan from the east coast. Soon thereafter, a combined US-ROK force would likely stage an amphibious landing near Wonsan, and advance to Pyongyang. Subsequently, a combined US-ROK force would execute a major counteroffensive from north of Seoul aimed at seizing Pyongyang. This would be achieved either by linking up with the force at Wonsan, or meeting it at Pyongyang.

North Korea, devastated during the Korean War, also places great emphasis on maintaining a strong defense. To achieve the strategic defense mission, North Korea has established defensive belts. They are designed to defeat any attack from ground or amphibious forces. The main strategic belt runs from the DMZ to Pyongyang. This belt contains over two-thirds of the DPRK's active maneuver ground forces. Ground defense along this belt is carried out by MPAF and corps level units.

Two army-level headquarters may be activated for wartime operations. The navy provides coastal defense, and the army provides ground anti-landing defense. The air force and anti air artillery units of the army provide defense of DPRK airspace. At the initiation of a DPRK ground offensive, the North's reserve forces, numbering some 5 million, would man a pre-established, in-depth national defense network.

Tasks performed during the Destruction Phase of the OPLAN reportedly involve a strategy of maneuver warfare north of the Demilitarized Zone with a goal of terminating the North Korea regime, rather than simply terminating the war by returning North Korean forces to the Truce Line. In this phase operations would include the US invasion of North Korea, the destruction of the Korean People’s Army and the North Korean government in Pyongyang. The plan includes the possibility of a Marine amphibious assault into the narrow waist of North Korea to cut the country in two. US troops would occupy north Korea and "Washington and Seoul will then abolish north Korea as a state and ‘reorganize’ it under South Korean control.

27 posted on 12/27/2002 12:58:38 PM PST by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
When the Allies refused to enforce the conditions of the 1918 Armistice and allowed Germany to rebuild its strength, the die was cast for another world war.

Bingo! All this leftie crap about Germany being too harshly punished after the World War 1 is a bunch of garbage. I took a course about World War 1 in college, and I found out that the architects of the peace plan (especially France) said that Germany was not being punished enough and that the Treaty of Versailles was a peace plan that would last just 20 years.

28 posted on 12/27/2002 12:59:33 PM PST by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Can we pass a new law?

A Pre-requisite for voting is prior military service, membership to an active ROTC unit with signed contracts, or membership in the Peace Corps.

29 posted on 12/27/2002 1:01:12 PM PST by PokeyJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
If we start a draft....

the illegal immigrants will leave.
30 posted on 12/27/2002 1:01:38 PM PST by MedicalMess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PokeyJoe
Other than being unconstitutional, sound idea.
31 posted on 12/27/2002 1:02:45 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
They won't be drafted. Now if we end welfare, free education and medical care. They WILL leave.
32 posted on 12/27/2002 1:03:42 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Army service in South Korea is mandatory, I believe. They have 650,000 men at arms at any given time, I believe. NK has a million. Might this be the numbers they are talking about?

33 posted on 12/27/2002 1:06:31 PM PST by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Last time the Chinese came into the peninsula and fought with the North Koreans against the United States. Part Deux?
34 posted on 12/27/2002 1:09:27 PM PST by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
If they come to Mexico...we'll send them back.
35 posted on 12/27/2002 1:15:51 PM PST by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
So, that little thing called the consititution didn't stop the democRATs.

Besides, we can always amend it. =)

36 posted on 12/27/2002 1:18:00 PM PST by PokeyJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Sadly, I concur. What I see here in Washington state, these leftist would not defend their homes, block or city, much less this republic. They are weak kneed, need constant mothering, dress like Elvira, and are totally limp and lame. If a draft were started, I seriously doubt 50% would show up.
37 posted on 12/27/2002 1:21:33 PM PST by RetiredArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
First, thanks for your service to our country.

these leftist would not defend their homes, block or city, much less this republic.

Defend this republic or the Republic of Korea? I see nearly every able bodied man (and many women) showing up to defend the former, but not many for the latter.

If a draft were started, I seriously doubt 50% would show up.

Oh, they'll show up all right. On election day. Institute a draft, and even Hillary could get elected.

38 posted on 12/27/2002 1:27:18 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
I commend your patriotism and sense of duty, you sound like a fine young man. I urge you and other young people to educate yourself as much as possible about the hows and whys of current events so that you'll better understand why your life could be on the line someday. The reason I say this is my son is 16 and I fear that someday he could be drafted and sent to some third world hellhole to protect the interests of BIG OIL instead of somewhere more sensible like our own borders.

Some things don't seem to make sense about the current drumbeat for war coming from Washington. We're set to unleash hell on Saddam, who might've had some role in 9/11 but the fact is the majority of hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and our political/media never misses a chance to kiss their collective butts. We've played footsie with N. Korea for years and there's no doubt that they're recent actions are being co-ordinated to create a possible two war front scenario that would sap the USA of men and $. We have troops stationed in almost 100 nations protecting the populace and even defending foreign borders but somehow that idea is never been implemented on our southern border, thus allowing murderers, rapists, car thieves, etc. to enter our country without impunity thus allowing them to wreak all sorts of havoc on Americans. During the first Gulf War we bombed the hell out of Iraq, causing untold deaths of innocent people then our fedgov with all their wisdom decided to import former Iraqui soldiers into areas like Okla. City and guess what happened there. (Any skeptics as to Iraqui involvement should read Jayna Davis' reports).

My point is things may not always be what they seem on the surface and the actions of our fedgov just totally defy logic and common sense when it's sorely needed. My belief is that these conflicts could easily be avoided by using intelligence agencies to eradicate a known terrorist person or group at a greatly reduced cost to the taxpayers yet our alleged leaders still push ahead with their plans for military action against these boogie men. There are a lot of pieces to this puzzle and slowly the final product is becoming clearer all the time and I don't think it will be a very pretty sight when all is said and done. My hope and prayer for many young men and women is that if they're forced to put their life on the line, it's for the best interests of America and not those of a few world elitists.
39 posted on 12/27/2002 1:29:11 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
I would expect S. Korea to furnish the army. Let them draft their kids, first. From the protest pictures I've observed, there seem to be plenty of them with too much time on their hands.
40 posted on 12/27/2002 1:39:15 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rs79bm
1. The North Koreans are too crazy to pay attention to our rhetoric. The only thing they understand like most penny ante dictators (Saddam) is force.

2. 690,000 troops is just about what KLINTON gutted our military by in his initial RIF (Reduction In Force) I know because I was a very senior captain victimized by that rape. I'd be a senior 05 or maybe even a full 06 by now.

I've been offered a major's commission in the national guard, but some health problems will preclude that for about a year to get done with surgery, etc. But I and they left the door open for a year down the line. IF they still need me.

3. I would tend to agree that they'd get the numbers if they recalled the troops and officers they forced out over the last ten-twelve years. Most would jump at the chance as long as they didn't need to worry about humpin' a rucksack all over the world. Spirit is willing but many's the back and flesh that have grown weaker...lol

41 posted on 12/27/2002 1:41:52 PM PST by ExSoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal; SamAdams76
Sorry, both of you are wrong.
Many people here believe, that the Treaty of Versailles was the root of 01/30/1933. The Treaty was too brutal for the weak economy in Germany. Hitler was mostly elected by unemployed, workers, simple people. Eisenhower and Marshal have learned from that Treaty, they wanted a Germany which became voluntary a friend of the Allies - and they got it. The day the US bombers threw food on Berlin was the day the US has won a new ally.

Not oppressing, but helping the defeated enemy was the right way - and this is what we do today in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and what we will do in Iraq. Showing strength until the enemy is weak - and then rebuild it with your ideas but make sure that the defeated accept it.

The Versailles Treaty was the worst peace treaty in worlds history. Germany lost one third of its territory (even with German ethnic majority), it had to pay 5 billions Goldmark p.a. until 1989 (70 years, the paying stopped in the 20´s), it had to deliver coal to France and to give up the Saar area for 15 years ... to name the important facts of that "treaty".

Michael

P.S.: WWII started in 1937 in the South-Pacific-region.

42 posted on 12/27/2002 1:45:13 PM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: LdSentinal
Good for you kid! YOU embody the "Spirit of America!"

However, the Haitian immigrants I teach in high school would beat feet back to the poverty of Haiti so fast there'd be a sonic boom over South Florida. THAT'S why I'm against the influx of immigrants who want the benefits of American residency without having to make sacrifices.

I tell 'em straight out to not wait...GO NOW and don't let the door hit 'em in the butt on the way out and don't come back, either! Not a very popular attitude for a public school teacher to take, but my faculty knows better than to get me started....lol

44 posted on 12/27/2002 1:48:54 PM PST by ExSoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Why not just let the two sides fight it out? Who gives a crap about South Korea? Most people there hate our guts anyway, and we gain no eceonomic advantage from them. It would cut our exports big time, and some of those stupid commie S. Korean students we always see cursing America and rioting would die off. No one would miss those rabble rousers. We can use daisycutters and special forces to destroy any nuclear presence when its all said and done.
45 posted on 12/27/2002 1:52:11 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
You make some good points and I agree that the money part of the Versailles treaty was unreasonable. The Germans ended up borrowing the money from the U.S. and got so deep in debt that the Weimar Republic was eventually brought down due to hyperinflation.

However, where the Allies went wrong was not enforcing the disarmament side of the treaty. They continued to allow the Germans to build bigger and bigger ships in violation of the treaty and to build an air force, which was also forbidden. Then they allowed the Germans to begin reoccupying the Rhine and other areas.

They had it backwards. They should have forgiven the monetary part of it and enforced the more important disarmament parts of the treaty.

The U.S. did a great thing after WW2. They were kind to Germany and Japan after the war and they ended up not only emulating our way of life but became the second and third largest economies in the world in the process.

46 posted on 12/27/2002 1:54:15 PM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Korea is commonly regarded as rugged infantry terrain that invites neither mobile ground warfare nor heavy air bombardment, but North Korea has assembled large armored forces that are critical to exploiting breakthroughs, and these forces would pass down narrow corridors that are potential killing zones for U.S. airpower.

Sounds like the very scenario that brought about the design and construction of these:


47 posted on 12/27/2002 1:54:29 PM PST by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez
Wish we would do that.
48 posted on 12/27/2002 1:58:38 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
No discussion, it was a fault that the French and Brits didn´t interfere when Hitler marched into the Rhineland 1935. It is reported, that Hitler bluffed and wasn´t able to start a war against both nations - he had withdrawed if the Allies called to do so... imagine how the world have developed!

49 posted on 12/27/2002 2:01:27 PM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
I don't think we could get enough troops to SK in time to prevent the fall of Seoul

Seoul would be toast right away. The question is how far N Kor will advance down the penninsula before they run out of gas.

50 posted on 12/27/2002 2:01:50 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-182 next last

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