This is a discussion on Korea still needs U.S army within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Leon Panetta U.S Defense Secretary attended 43th SCM in Seoul and made sure how ROK-US alliance is important. He is ...
Leon Panetta U.S Defense Secretary attended 43th SCM in Seoul and made sure how ROK-US alliance is important. He is said to upgrade specifically the strategies about national defense & diplomacy that US-Korea summit had promised.
As soon as he arrived at Korea, he visited the ROK-US Combined Forces Command and emphasized Korea-US relations. He said that US will do the best to protect Korea and reinforce U.S army and it's power to keep the peace of Asia-Pacific area.
He also said that Korean war veterans' sacrifice and efforts made current Korea and U.S will keep joining the defense of the Korean Peninsula and Asia-Pacific. I think this meeting was meaningful to confirm their strong relationship.
Actually, Japan cannot deal, militarily, with North Korea thanks to the Constitution written by SCAP after WW2 ended. The re-arming of Japan only occurred during the Korean War in the event that the Russians or Chinese pushed into S. Korea and looked to hop across the Straits of Tsushima. The JGSDF, JMSDF, and JASDF are forbidden by law to deploy overseas, though they seem to have become a little more pro-active in peacekeeping operations. [Mod Edit; The text in bold is factually wrong. See swerve's reply below.]
At this point, the US is still the bigger player with PACCOM's 7th Fleet based in Japan and able to assert naval dominance. The presence of US land, air and naval forces acts a deterrent. If US troops were removed, N. Korea invaded and a UN Mandate passed for intervention, it would look pretty bad on the US for ditching an ally and not preventing the outbreak of conflict. Then again, the US is still there because of the UN mandate in the 50s which led to a coalition of forces being deployed to Korea.
Also, having forces in Japan and Korea means that there are combat units close to China. If nothing else, it's an indirect pressure on China. Though, one could say it is debatable whether tensions increase or decrease with a US military presence close to China.
So... no matter what, unless the US abandons its anti-nuclear proliferation agenda (which won't happen because no one wants N. Korea with atomic or nuclear weapons) or unless there is a total 180 degree regime change (which probably won't happen) the US will continue to deploy troops to the region. It maintains the balance of power.
Last edited by OPSSG; December 19th, 2011 at 03:29 AM.
The SKA is in good shape to handle the N. Koreans. If S. Koreans did decide to takeover N korea it can do it by itself. The US equipment and aircrafts will have to be resupply by the US and that where the problem comes. The S Koreans have a strong force that have over 50 years training by US forces. The reason why US is there is because of China.
without US army protection, SK (South Korea) will be under Communist rule. I am not sure that SK can handle NK alone.
All SK needs for victory is to be able to hold out for 2 weeks and it wins. NK is incapable of sustaining a war.... the SK army is more than capable of defeating the NK assault.
All SK needs for victory is to be able to hold out for 2 weeks and it wins. NK is incapable of sustaining a war.... the SK army is more than capable of defeating the NK assault.
It can hold out longer than that if US resupply them. The NK they need to get a quick victory cause they don't have a good supply unless China come to there aid highly unlikely or if the SK head up and take over NK. The NK have a backup plan if it fails the first assault. The SK can handle them its has 38,000 US troops to aid them and that's enough for that conflict.
Last edited by surpreme; November 14th, 2011 at 04:20 PM.
Reason: spelling
Actually, Japan cannot deal, militarily, with North Korea thanks to the Constitution written by SCAP after WW2 ended. ... The JGSDF, JMSDF, and JASDF are forbidden by law to deploy overseas, though they seem to have become a little more pro-active in peacekeeping operations.....
They're not forbidden by law to deploy overseas. They're forbidden, under the current interpretation of the constitution, to fight wars. The interpretation does, however, allow them to fight to defend Japan, & it is possible that in the right circumstances this could be interpreted to allow Japanese forces to assist S. Korea, if it was attacked by the North.
Oh? Is that so? I really need to get my hands on an English translation of the constitution then. It'd be terrible for me to remain so uninformed about these legal debates on Japanese constitutional law. Do you know which way the political parties stand on the matter or if not political parties, how does it divide between the various interpretations?
If I recall correctly, their overseas deployment to Iraq from '04-06 was fairly unpopular at home, even though the mission was a reconstruction and support group.
I've linked to the official translation (on the Japanese Diet site), & the official interpretation of the sections relating to the military (on the Japanese defence ministry site), & the law & policy relating to arms exports (ministry of trade & industry) on this & a couple of other military fora. Every military forum regularly gets ill-informed posts of the "the Japanese constitution forbids aircraft carriers" or "forbids weapons exports", sort.
I can't be bothered to look up the links now, but I remember they were easy to find with Google.
Most people in Japan didn't seem to care much about the Iraq mission. The general attitude was that of my wife, i.e. "What's it got to do with us?", IIRC, but not particularly interested. I remember seeing pictures of the deployment on Japanese TV.
I think the militarist far right was not in favour, on the "Not our problem" grounds, but didn't actively oppose it..There was, however, a vocal minority who opposed it strongly: I think the same people who oppose anything to do with the military, & campaign for its abolition.
I've linked to the official translation (on the Japanese Diet site), & the official interpretation of the sections relating to the military (on the Japanese defence ministry site), & the law & policy relating to arms exports (ministry of trade & industry) on this & a couple of other military fora. Every military forum regularly gets ill-informed posts of the "the Japanese constitution forbids aircraft carriers" or "forbids weapons exports", sort.
I can't be bothered to look up the links now, but I remember they were easy to find with Google.
Most people in Japan didn't seem to care much about the Iraq mission. The general attitude was that of my wife, i.e. "What's it got to do with us?", IIRC, but not particularly interested. I remember seeing pictures of the deployment on Japanese TV.
I think the militarist far right was not in favour, on the "Not our problem" grounds, but didn't actively oppose it..There was, however, a vocal minority who opposed it strongly: I think the same people who oppose anything to do with the military, & campaign for its abolition.
"I think the same people who oppose anything to do with the military, & campaign for its abolition."
And that has got to be the dumbest of opinions.....not that its unique to the Japanese mind you.
Never understood those who think a nation can get by without a military. Some like costa rica can because for the most part they had no need and even if someone tried it a nation like the US was there.
Now ironicly that has backfired because the cartels have come so we are training them to fight them.
They will continue to need US support in the event of anything licking off with NK. The Chinese may well intervene on behalf of NK if the US forces were not nearby.
They will continue to need US support in the event of anything licking off with NK. The Chinese may well intervene on behalf of NK if the US forces were not nearby.
Yes will need the US support like I said before they can handle the NK by themselves. The Chinese only will get into it because the US is there not the other way around.
I dont really think we really dont neeed us tropp due to the fact that S.korwan military will over power n.korean military in Airforce,navy, firepower and technology. Also, i don even think that north korea doesnt have money to buy oil to fuel their tank and to replace part for their jets.lastly, south korea now builds one of world top tanks in the world that couldkick t-75(50% of north korean tank) ass anyday
By the way china will not support nkorea because of the fact that north korea doesnt have money nor a [Mod Edit: Text deleted. Use of profanity is not encouraged.] single natural resource ti cover the pay up
Quote:
Originally Posted by surpreme
Yes will need the US support like I said before they can handle the NK by themselves. The Chinese only will get into it because the US is there not the other way around.
I dont think so because China cant get anything good out of north korea except wasting their money. Ps north korea is so poor that they cant even get oil for their tanks
[Mod Edit: Take note of these 4 points;-
(i) Read the forum rules (observing the forum rules in a requirement of posting);
(ii) 3 posts in the same thread, one after another, is post-whoring (trying to increase post count) and we don't encourage that;
(iii) this is a serious forum for the discussion of defence topics (if you want to take a piss at other countries, join another forum); and
(iv) do not delete this Mod warning (you will face administrative sactions if you delete this warning).]
Last edited by OPSSG; January 10th, 2012 at 03:03 AM.
I dont think so because China cant get anything good out of north korea except wasting their money. Ps north korea is so poor that they cant even get oil for their tanks
To be honest i think that China prefer to have N.Korea there as a diversion, and a buffer zone, I can't see china liking the fact of a united Korea most likely Very friendly with the west right on their door step.
So in my opinion i think they will continue to prop up the North Koreans.
