What would happen if US pulls out of SK and Japan? - Page 4

On June 26 2011 02:04 exog wrote:


Stop being rational and sensible, this is international politics, money, sex, murders and all that jazz. "Benefits", "truth" and "reason" has nothing to do with this. Those concepts are far to advanced for the stone-age thought process of "the strongest is right".

On June 26 2011 03:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
NK would lose a war against SK in about a few weeks because the US and Japan would fall on NK from the sea like a ton of bricks.

Unfortunately NK has more than 10,000 artillery pieces and rocket launchers in range of Seoul, yeah they'd lose but they'd tear Seoul to pieces.

don't think it would be wise for the US to pull out of these countries, China is without doubt investing a lot in upgrading its military, including navy and airforce with the aim of creating a force that can rival that of the US and the intention of projecting their power further afield, pulling out would be an open invitation to China to take over these countries and others at some point. People are mentioning that Japan's army size is limited because of post-WW2 limitations but their defence force has been steadily building itself up over the years and the US is turning a blind eye because of North Korea, China and the Taiwan situation, they need strong allies and their own military assets in the region to maintain peace and order.

On June 26 2011 01:56 Klipsys wrote:



What the....

You know that japan hasn't had a standing army since WW2, and it's a violation of UN resolutions if they re-militarize

On June 26 2011 04:47 zalz wrote:


Japan is within nuclear missiles range of North-Korea and NK hates Japan with a passion that rivals the US.

When a war breaks out they will use their artillery to fire at SK and launch their nuclear missiles at Japanese cities. And there is no reliable way to stop those missiles.


They are currently estimated to have around 5 nukes. Even if we take into account that their missiles might not be very accurate, is it really that hard to hit a Japanese major city? They are rather large targets where a missile being off by a kilometer doesn't mean that much, it's still going to kill a lot of people.



At this point China's army couldn't hope to stand against the US for any serious ammount of time. Infact no country in the world could hope to fight the current US army.

Thanks to Hollywood the idea of the mobile modern army has become imprinted in people's minds as being the standard. The American army is insanely well funded compared to any other army in the world.


Even if the Chinese army was to rival the US in terms of funding (currently the US spends something like 20x as much) then the difference in strength would come from experience. The US has experience in several wars whilst China has experience in rolling over Tibet.

The US army is more seasoned and more funded. It will be decades before the Chinese army can be considered equall to the US.


It's not even just a matter of funding, you still got the problem of what to buy with the money. The US has a massive war machine that is constantly creating new and highly modern weaponry. China doesn't have a similar structure.

In terms for a military industrial complex China is like a country that has no roads and the US like a country that has roads, railroads, highways and a fully functional air communication structure.

On June 26 2011 02:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:


Ummm, this is why China is upgrading their navy and air force and to a slightly lesser degree their army, there is no arms race.



Wrong...

And to people who think that Japan would be violating some UN resolution if they were to "re-militarize," totally wrong. Only Japanese law (specifically their constitution) restricts their military. Their constitution says they are not allowed to have any offensive forces whatsoever. That's why their army and navy and air force have "Self-Defense" in the title, that's the only constitutional thing for them to do, they're allowed to have "self-defense forces."

Japan has already become more and more right-wing in its foreign policy especially toward North Korea, if the US left Tokyo and Seoul would both be terrified of Pyongyang and would greatly increase their forces as a result. Japan does not like and is very suspicious of NK especially because of the decades of NK kidnapping random Japanese off Japanese beaches to train NK spies on how to act Japanese.

Japan can change its constitution whenever it wants.



Ummm... wrong.

England and France approached Israel and said we're going to attack Egypt you should help us because hurting Egypt will help you in the short and long run. Israel said okay. England and France went to Eisenhower and said you should come too and he said no, and we can't support you in doing it. Don't do it. England and France did it and the US did not support them and forced London and Paris to accept a cease-fire when the USSR threatened to get involved. In England especially what the US did was viewed as the death knell of the British empire and was not very well received by the Brits.

On June 26 2011 03:45 NotSupporting wrote:
For people discussing a potential war between SK and NK I would just like to add that there is a war RIGHT NOW, SK and NK are officially still at war, a peace agreement was never reached only an agreement of ceasefire. Also, people thinking NK has nothing to threaten with anyway - NK has nuclear weapons and Seoul is very close to the border, these two factors are enough to create a huge disaster in case of resumed fighting

On June 26 2011 01:56 Klipsys wrote:



What the....

You know that japan hasn't had a standing army since WW2, and it's a violation of UN resolutions if they re-militarize