Stirring stick and a bottle of soju: The next Korean War (or the one after that)

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Greenhat
This isn't MAD, because our destruction is not assured. Theirs is.

But given our respective tolerances for casualties, does it really matter?

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
But given our respective tolerances for casualties, does it really matter?

Yep, particularly to them. A US administration might fall (and probably would), but not until the war was over (and failure to react would force the administration to fall anyway). It's a no-win situation for whatever administration it is, but the least risky response is to turn North Korea (or at least the NKPA) into steam and rubble.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Greenhat
This isn't MAD, because our destruction is not assured. Theirs is.

But does that matter? I suspect we'd puss out, and even if we didn't, I doubt the Dear Leader would think we'd gamble the future of Los Angeles or San Francisco to save Seoul . . .

[DanUCSB]

All of this begs another question. Do you think the US would go nuclear (and suffer the resulting disaster in public opinion/domestic politics) over South Korea? While there are US strategic interests there (including the US soldiers killed in the initial attack), they are not overwhelming. . . our primary reason for even being there (halting the spread of global communism) has since evaporated.

That said, yes, I believe that if the US committed itself to a knock-down drag-out with a NK invasion that did not melt like the Iraqi army, we would go nuclear. But I do not believe we would let it get that far. I'm sure there's an analyst wonk right now in the belly of the Pentagon writing a brief to the effect that, even in the worst case, the best policy would be for the US to pull out of South Korea, wait until the communists overextended themselves/killed off the SK economy, and then let them collapse. Which do you think the policymakers/politicians more fear, the overrun of Seoul, or the incineration of Honolulu?

[Solid]

RL,
I don't think the government would see a nuclear strike against NK as a strike to save Seoul, but instead as a preemtive strike in a future nuclear war that NK might want to start. It's a no-win situation- either we lose San Franciso now, or we lose it later. NK is not a rational state actor.

JMO,

Solid

[DoctorDoom]

x

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
But does that matter? I suspect we'd puss out, and even if we didn't, I doubt the Dear Leader would think we'd gamble the future of Los Angeles or San Francisco to save Seoul . . .

What choice really exists?

First, I don't think there is any real evidence that Kim has any weapons that can clearly reach LA or San Francisco reliably. Even if he does, should he come south, all the bets have to be that he will use everything he has. The South Korean Army fights, no matter what, the economy of the South and of Japan are destroyed if we don't risk it... and that likely means a depression like the Great Depression. So, you have to fight... and the only way to have any chance in that fight is to go nuclear, and to destroy the NKPA completely... including any launch facilities they might have. In my opinion, North Korea having nukes has made the response options much less flexible. War starts? Destroy the NKPA. Completely. Really isn't any other viable choice.

Doesn't mean every President would do it, but the ones that don't? Will watch a disaster unfold regarding Korea and Japan and may very well still see weapons launched at the United States. Kim is not sane, not attacking him does not mean you are not risking LA or Seattle anyway.

[Roguish Lawyer]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Bush Seeks Troop Reduction in S. Korea

By Barbara Demick, Times Staff Writer

SEOUL — The Pentagon wants to reduce its troop presence in South Korea by one-third by the end of next year, a far quicker and deeper troop cut than had been anticipated.

The South Korean government said today that it was notified of the troop reduction by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Lawless on the eve of an annual meeting between U.S. and Korean military officials.

The news apparently took the South Korean government by surprise, although smaller cuts were expected.

There has been much public fretting here lately about the psychological impact of U.S. troop reductions on financial markets and the economy, and about North Korea's ongoing development of nuclear weapons.

Kim Sook, head of the foreign ministry's North American division, said that the United States wanted to cut the 37,000 troops by about 12,500. Those cuts would include 3,600 soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division who are being redeployed from the demilitarized zone to Iraq.

Kim gave no indication of what the South Korean response was to the proposal, saying simply: "That is what the United States presented as their plan and we are going to discuss it."

South Korean officials quoted in the media have said they are pleading with the United States to delay the reduction until 2007.

The troop reductions are just one part of a global restructuring that is supposed to make U.S. forces more flexible and more mobile. For years, Pentagon officials have been unhappy about having large numbers of troops stuck at the DMZ, where they cannot be deployed to other trouble spots and would likely be trapped in the middle should another conflict break out with North Korea.

Among South Koreans, there is also a sense that the U.S. troop cuts are proof of a weakening U.S.-Korean alliance as a result of the left-of-center government of President Roh Moo Hyun.

"There was this binge of populist, nationalist anti-Americanism and now they are paying the consequences," said Lee Chung Min, an international relations specialist at Seoul's Yonsei University and a frequent critic of the current South Korean government. He said that South Koreans fear a weakening of their economy, such as occurred after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Philippines.

"If the U.S. footprint here gets smaller by the day, there could be economic repercussions. One reason that foreign companies have been willing to invest in Korea is because of the strong U.S. alliance."

The U.S. troop presence at the DMZ dates back to the end of the Korean War. The number has been reduced repeatedly since the end of the war as tensions calmed with North Korea.

The last time there was a significant troop reduction in South Korea was in 1971, when the number was cut from 63,000 to 43,000. In 1992, another 5,000 troops were cut.

[lrd]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You think I'm making this stuff up?

Try the contractor sites for a start.

Check your PMs.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Seems like those F-22s would come in handy . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/23/air...eut/index.html

U.S. warned it could lose air supremacy
Friday, June 25, 2004 Posted: 9:48 AM EDT (1348 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- United States must modernize its fighter jets to maintain air supremacy, a top Air Force general said Wednesday citing the success of advanced Russian-made jets against American planes in a recent exercise as signaling an erosion of its overwhelming advantage.

Gen. Hal Hornburg, head of U.S. Air Combat Command, said a U.S. air-to-air exercise with the Indian Air Force in February, in which India used Russian jets to defeat aging American F-15Cs, revealed "that we may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were."

Defense experts in both the United States and Europe, however, have said it is unlikely that America -- with vast spending power and a major industrial base -- would lose its dominance in military technology.

U.S. defense officials have said Indian SU-30, Mig-27 and older MiG-21 jets, some armed with Russian-made AA-10 air-to-air missiles, got the best of F-15s based in Alaska in exercise "Cope India" high over northern India.

Hornburg said in an interview with military writers the air maneuvers emphasized his service's push for expensive, stealthy new F/A-22 "Raptors" being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters being designed by Lockheed with input from allies.

He declined to discuss classified results of the exercise but said, "Something like Cope India, when we find that some of our advantages aren't as great as we thought they might be, leads me to remind people that we need to modernize our air-to-air capability."

Hornburg added, "We have been saying for a long time that we need newer fighters to do more things," and that the Indian exercise could be a "wake-up call" for Washington.

Russia's Sukhoi aviation works and the Moscow Air Production Organization company have been designing and building increasingly advanced fighters such as the MiG-29 in recent years. India, China and other countries are buying the warplanes -- some with contracts for co-production.

France and Sweden also build advanced combat planes and a consortium of four European countries, including Britain, are producing the Eurofighter "Typhoon" jet.

"I see air forces across the spectrum and across the world becoming better and better as each year passes. That just means that we have to do the same thing," said Hornburg.

"With air superiority, everything is possible. Without it, hardly anything's possible" he added. "People jump to the conclusion that it is ours just because we go. And that's blatantly false."

[The Reaper]

AF, trying to justify its portion (the largest) of the defense budget, despite their limited contribution in the current campaign.

Who is the threat we will fight with these modern aircraft?

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
AF, trying to justify its portion (the largest) of the defense budget, despite their limited contribution in the current campaign.

Who is the threat we will fight with these modern aircraft?

TR

First point is well taken.

Re: the second point: I would start with China.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Re: the second point: I would start with China.

How do they get here?

Secret force projection capability?

TR

[Solid]

I've heard rumours that China has started developing its own air superiority aircraft, but haven't seen or heard anything other than "it's like the F-22". Previously, I believe the Chinese preferred to purchase or heavily modify existing technology.

Does anyone have any information on this? Google doesn't come up with anything solid.

Thank you,

Solid

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
How do they get here?

Secret force projection capability?

TR

If our only objective is to defend U.S. soil, then I agree that the chances of war with China are remote. There are, however, other matters that could lead to conflict with China over the next 10-15 years. Taiwan is one.