U.S. Would Send 690,000 Troops to Korea If War Breaks Out: Report

Yonhap News Worldservice (S Korea) ^

[RaceBannon]

This would fulfill the Okinawan's dreams of us leaving, for sure, the island would be empty.

[VetsRule]

You raise points that I'm curious about myself. Everything I've read lately seems to indicate that SK has a pretty damn good army, even though NK has the advantage in sheer numbers and artillery.

Could SK hold out or even roll back NK forces without substantial US ground forces? Assuming complete SK/US air control, that is.

VR

[RaceBannon]

They should move all those stupid Korean anti-U.S. types to the front lines if war does break out. <p. Umm, those Koreans would be at the front lines before our Congress would even vote to have a vote on the draft...

[HighRoadToChina]

I too agree with Safire's recommendation. If the South Koreans are that anti-American as shown by their demonstrating students, it's time for the US to leave and let them defend their own homeland. Such ingratitude is unbelievable and inexcusable.

Let the American forces fight not as sitting ducks but as we did in Iraq I and soon to do in Iraq II: initiators of war not reactors.

[ALS]

I believe the transcript shows someone agreeing with you.

[WRhine]

My point is that the United States will NOT fight a war with NK using 690,000 troops. If this thing heats up into a real war with North Korea WHILE we are are waging a war with Iraq, we will do what we need to do to win. And that includes nukes.

If we do that then we effectively sanction the use of Nukes as a valid military option. This will only put our own country at a greater risk of a nuclear attack with enemy nations and rouge terrorist networks that are looking for any excuse to do the same to us…when they can. I don't think we should go down this road unless it is absolutely, positively the last option.

[HighRoadToChina]

"That having been said, Communism in China is dead..."

That is true for the China that is not military. Howeverm the Chinese military is drilled and trained as a Communist war machine with all the propaganda blazing. Red China still exists because there is a Red army to prop up the dictators of Beijing. I would agree with you if there wasn't a Red army around. That's why Jiang Zemin is the head of the Central Military Commission, the de facto military head of the PRC, and because of that it is he who still controls China and not Hu Jintao, the new President.

[HighRoadToChina]

I agree with you the North has a lot to do with the student demonstrations. But still inexcusable and totally ungrateful for the Americans who died to defend freedom for South Koreans--where is the outrage among South Koreans for that recent burning of a hugh American flag?

[Sabertooth]

[Steel Wolf]

Could SK hold out or even roll back NK forces without substantial US ground forces? Assuming complete SK/US air control, that is.

Short answer: Yes. It would be an absolute bloodbath, no two ways about it, but the North doesn't have the edge to get the job done. They have a variety of tools at their disposal, but the bottom line is that the South has been preparing for this for 50 years, and they know where to expect the mischief.

After the first week, the North will have either taken Seoul, or be facing a massive mobilization and counterattack. Within two to three weeks, most of the invaders will be on the run (or have deserted en masse), and the North will be done for. Even if Seoul falls, the North won't be able to hold it for long.

The North has some fatal weaknesses that will be their undoing. They have the most inflexible chain of command on Earth. They would have no way to exploit battlefield opportunites crucial in an invasion, because of their command structure. The South, on the other hand, is deadly, agile, and wired.

Also, the KPA is expected by both sides to be reliable only in garrison. Once the troops are out from under the secret police, and moving South, they will see for their own eyes wealth they've never dreamed of. Entire units will simply vanish. The higher ranking officers, who by necessity know what to expect, may become unreliable if ordered to move south into certain defeat.

All in all, war would be devastating for the South, but fatal for the North.

[HighRoadToChina]

I agree with you that losing South Korea is not in the best interest of America, because then we will have a solid Communist Korea which means that Japan and Taiwan are next.

Best to let the South Koreans provide the ground force in the south and let the Americans do the air war and the "backdoor" war into North Korea itself.

The thing about fighting against two of the richest nations on earth is not a valid argument (on why the South will eventually win) though. North Korea is bare-bones, but the military is well-fed and well-armed. And you have to understand that one of the key objectives of taking over the South is to lay hold of the infrastructure of the South. And because of that I suspect that the North will use chemical and biological warfare rather than nuclear.

[VetsRule]

Thank you both, those posts were very interesting and educational. It sounds like the worst of it (and worst = pretty darn horrible, in this case) would be the enormous casualties, mostly civilian, in and around Seoul.

I hear the new SK president wants to move 500,000 civil servants from Seoul to the countryside. He's claiming it's for economic reasons, but considering the NK rhetoric lately, that might not be a bad idea for entirely different reasons...

VR

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"...most of our young people will run for Mexico and Canada if the draft is restarted"

Time to conscript illegals and send them to Korea? Tell Fox, get yo' @$$ and yo' countrymens' @$$ into our army and we will send you to do . . .and then maybe we need to tell Fox to F off ad stay out of our affairs. We do not want his cast-aways!