On June 26 2011 05:41 Klogon wrote: Too many people underestimate the SK military. Look at this graph that shows military spending and notice that North Korea is not even on the list bc their spending is too small compared to the rest. This is what happens when your GDP is so tiny.
So SK spends 2.8% of GDP while NK spends 15%+ and SK still spends more. And generally in modern warfare, the more you spend the better your military capabilities are.
In modern warfare you still can't discount an army of 1+ million enlisted and 8+ million reserves, even if they are probably armed in cold war era munitions.
On June 26 2011 06:00 Swagalisk wrote: Just as a note. We will never "pull out" of Japan or South Korea. It doesn't matter who the President at the time; our pressence there is needed. Simply us being near by to "dangerous" countries keeps them in check.
For example, lets say North Korea does attack countries in that region. We could launch an offensive from Japan or South Korea the same day. As apposed to having to fight for a foot hold in that region, which could take some time.
Who dictates the rights of the United States to even involve themselves in the matter, your "foothold" on every ones earth. Not your earth, don't speak as if you are the peacekeepers of the world, whenever I hear of that I think of Robin Williams take on the military, went something like this (paraphrased)
"yeah... (heavy drawl) We sure did save the middle east, we went in, john wayne style, blasted 1 big hole after another, we did good didnt we... We, us Americans, are such great people we decided to go back a few decades later and blow the holes we already blew open, into bigger ones. We like to blow, especially in san fransico, but not to stray from the point, we just decided to move the rubble on the left, slightly to the right... Aren't we kind, bet the people in the Middle East alwaysss thank us for are reconstruction efforts and kind support"
United States are far from a peacekeeping nation, and the foothold is only to withhold its general interest in the sector, not attempt to "keep peace" if the American government gives less than a shit about its own population, then I hardly think it cares about SK and NK, or Japan for the matter. It's all about keeping chinas growth limited, trade lanes open, not peace in the area (that's just a perk). Don't be naive, you are right on one thing though, "keeps them in check" because thats all it is, just keeping the interests of America in check.
On June 26 2011 01:32 kaisen wrote: Politically speaking, what would happen if US pulls troops out of South Korea and Japan? This is an interesting question because right now there is a huge power struggle in East Asia between china and US. At the moment, both South Korea and Japan are paying billions of dollars for US bases every year and both countries want US troops to stay. But what would happen if US completely pulls out of East Asia? China wants US gone from the region, along with their sphere of influence. US is using both South korea and Japan as buffer zone for china. Will china become sole dominant power in Asia and both South Korea and Japan fall under china's influence? Will US ever pull troops out of both SK and Japan?
Open Spoiler if you want SOME reflected opinions on this matter based on facts, rather than assumptions/heresay.
It is highly unlikely that the US would pull out of South Korea and Japan at this time. That being said, they have gradually decreased the number of standing military personnell in these countries since the end of the Cold War, so their military commitment to the region (being East Asia) has decreased somewhat.
However, they still maintain a HUGE influence on this region, centered around the Korean Peninsula, with the major contenders for influence being China, Russia, and of course the US of A. This is evident in the "Six Party Talks", a multilateral security forum aiming to lower tensions on the peninsula specifically, and the region as a whole. Basically, a complete military retreat from the region would no longer legitimise American claims for a continued influence in this political sphere, and both Russia and China would jump to fill the power gap (that does NOT necessairly mean war/military action).
Now, let's look at this from an economical perspective. Japan was JUST recently overtaken by China as the second largest economy in the world, and is still FAR behind the US in this regard. Japan and South Korea's economies are larger than the Chinese economy when put together by a fair ammount. As such, China cannot dictate regional policy purely based on economic pressure/extortion, nor would they want to as they are interested in continued trade and economic growth, especially with the US.
I also see a lot of people saying stuff like "North Korea could crush South Korea with artillery and nuke Japan, and then kill everyone who invaded because they have such a large army, etc". Ok, so, what is the overall goal of the North Korean regime? To survive. This is their ONLY goal; not the spread of communism, not the fight against capitalism, nor any other ideological struggle. They simply want to carry on and be left alone (except for the continued shipments of food/oil/medicine.) North Korea is fucked if they invade South Korea, the regime would NOT survive such a war, and the region would suffer devastating consequences. Contrary to popular belief, North Korea DOES NOT possess any dependable means of delivery of a nuclear weapon, nor is there any empirical evidence of them actually managing to produce a nuclear weapon. Yes, I am aware a nuclear explosion was recorded a little while back by American Seismological instruments, but this was a relatively small explosion, much smaller than the Nagasaki bomb, and indeed it was downclassed to that of a nuclear device, NOT a bomb. As for means of delivery, North Korea has made several attempts to launch a satellite into orbit, failing miserably every time. Yes, they do possess some missile systems, but no, these are not accurate enough, nor do they have the range to really harm Japan, unless they get lucky (kinda like V1 rockets ruing WW2). In a conventional war, North Korea has a superior lead in both standing army, tanks, guns, ships, etc ON PAPER. Did you know most North Korean vessels are actually mini-submarines or gunboats/patrol boats? Did you know the standing army is largely due to the millions of reservists they have conscripted? And have you even considered the technoligical deficit they would find themselves in when going against the most advanced war machines on the planet?
Finally, China would NEVER engange in a war that North Korea had started. They didn't do so in 1950, they wouldn't do so now. They were even instrumental in the division of the country along the 38th parallel
Feel free to argue any of these points, I wrote my bachelor on the subject and would love to have some more credible insight/reflected debate on the matter. Oh right.. TL.net forums, better not hope for too too much!
I personally think it's very likely that China will emerge as the new superpower in the world within this decade. Whether the U.S. is able to maintain it's status along side China joining the club, is up in the air. In some ways China has reached that status already. Of course they are trying to expand their sphere of influence. That what superpowers do.
China is becoming such an economic powerhouse, they won't have to make war in order to grow in power. They will be able to suck nations dry from the inside. I think they realize this.
I think Japan will stay as it is for the foreseeable future. But I would be very surprised if North Korea didn't collapse in the next few years. Things are bad there, and the Dictator is getting pretty old.
My take on the possibilities there are that if the government did collapse, it would make the most sense for the people of North Korea to either reunite with the South. Or be absorbed by China. But sometimes things like this are a slow process taking decades.
On June 26 2011 05:25 Medrea wrote: Current logic is that without US presence in South Korea, North Korea with its 4th largest standing army in the world will rush across the DMZ and capture Seoul, South Korea in no time at all. .
please stop spouting this absolute nonsense as has already been established in this thread and for anyone who knows anything about the conflict the size of north koreas army doesnt matter
I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definatly) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasnt had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to todays Austria.
On June 26 2011 06:27 MERLIN. wrote: I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definatly) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasnt had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to todays Austria.
On June 26 2011 05:25 Medrea wrote: Current logic is that without US presence in South Korea, North Korea with its 4th largest standing army in the world will rush across the DMZ and capture Seoul, South Korea in no time at all. .
please stop spouting this absolute nonsense as has already been established in this thread and for anyone who knows anything about the conflict the size of north koreas army doesnt matter
The main problem is the ridiculous amount of artillery they have targeted at Seoul, lying in wait. That isn't quite so easy to stop.
People need to watchBrotherhood of War The best korean movie of all time, and it clearly shows why need to have our troops in Korea. Hell would break loose if we left that place.
On June 26 2011 01:57 exog wrote: Interetsting question, people in general forget that the human mind doesnt change in 50 years, and a new big war should never surprize anyone.
As NK has a mad dictator-family, its very possible they would "retake whats theirs with the blesing of (insert god here)", or any other stupid reason like the americans do all the time. If this happen its very possible that china would support them for political/economicals reasons without dirtying their hands.
You do realize that the only ties between North Korea and China is that they are both communist right? China wants nothing to do with Kim Jeong Il and his family. Everyone in Asia is afraid of that man and what he might do if he declares war. Remember North Korea has been testing and making nuclear weaponry, although it can't reach the US or Europe, the nukes can still take out much of Japan, South Korea, and China before anyone could respond.
It is because larger countries like Germany, Russia, and the United States have bases around, and can bring down swift military retaliation that North Korea hasn't tried anything yet. I'm not a big fan of war and with very few exceptions have seen any war to be necessary. I do feel however we need to keep our bases in that area running just to try and keep North Korea in check.
It's a launching point in case shit goes down. If we have no bases anywhere and someone decides to attack Japan or South Korea, you're pretty much SOL .
Personally I feel like the citizens of each country should be allowed to decide whether they want US bases in their country or not.
I imagine that would result in us leaving Germany (seems dumb to even still be there), Japan MIGHT kick the U.S. out (it might be a close vote, I'm not sure what would happen), but South Korea definitely, definitely doesn't want the U.S. gone.
On June 26 2011 05:41 Klogon wrote: Too many people underestimate the SK military. Look at this graph that shows military spending and notice that North Korea is not even on the list bc their spending is too small compared to the rest. This is what happens when your GDP is so tiny.
So SK spends 2.8% of GDP while NK spends 15%+ and SK still spends more. And generally in modern warfare, the more you spend the better your military capabilities are.
In modern warfare you still can't discount an army of 1+ million enlisted and 8+ million reserves, even if they are probably armed in cold war era munitions.
Nobody is discounting anything. NK will pummel much of Seoul's infrastructure within days with artillery. But to say NK's 1million man cold-war era army would sweep through SK's 600,000 man modern army that has complete air-dominance is not accurate.
On June 26 2011 06:27 MERLIN. wrote: I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definatly) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasnt had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to todays Austria.
Lol, I think it might just have been a troll
maybe the post was 90 years old
lol look it up the French Armed Forces is currently the largest army in Europe the 3rd largest army in NATO and only the US and Russia have more nukes then France. SO yeah check your facts before you start being a douche and an ignorant American and start hating on a country you know nothing about.
On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote: I think the US should definitely pull out of both South Korea and Japan, along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. There are things far more important than imperialism for the US to be spending its money on right now.
On June 26 2011 01:56 Feridan wrote: They can't allow a regional power to shut down the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Hormuz, the Panama or Suez canals .
have you ever heard of the suez crisis?? The US allowed the situation you're describing as not happening to happen
I don't see a problem with the bases, if anything they offer a place where they can easily transport goods from in case of emergencies. I'm sure our base in japan helped a TON during the tsunami. We're pretty big donators when it comes to emergency relief.
On June 26 2011 05:41 Klogon wrote: Too many people underestimate the SK military. Look at this graph that shows military spending and notice that North Korea is not even on the list bc their spending is too small compared to the rest. This is what happens when your GDP is so tiny.
So SK spends 2.8% of GDP while NK spends 15%+ and SK still spends more. And generally in modern warfare, the more you spend the better your military capabilities are.
In modern warfare you still can't discount an army of 1+ million enlisted and 8+ million reserves, even if they are probably armed in cold war era munitions.
Nobody is discounting anything. NK will pummel much of Seoul's infrastructure within days with artillery. But to say NK's 1million man cold-war era army would sweep through SK's 600,000 man modern army with complete air-dominance is not accurate.
But that's the whole problem.
Everyone can agree that NK would never win such a war but given their army size there can't be any doubt that the destruction and loss of human life would be on an enormous scale.
Winning a war doesn't mean that you can't lose it.
On June 26 2011 06:27 MERLIN. wrote: I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definatly) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasnt had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to todays Austria.
Lol, I think it might just have been a troll
maybe the post was 90 years old
lol look it up the French Armed Forces is currently the largest army in Europe the 3rd largest army in NATO and only the US and Russia have more nukes then France. SO yeah check your facts before you start being a douche and an ignorant American and start hating on a country you know nothing about.
Well... It seems in your title is states you are from the United States, and neither I nor the other member of TL you mentioned pose the same location. He is from Australia and I am from Canada, aren't you an ignorant American and a hipocrite.
And last time I checked, the largest army per capita was Switzerland, and I think we all know something about the French attempts at being an army past the Napoleon Era. (WW1, ope fucked that, WW2, didn't even notice there involvement after being dominated so badly)
Good thing that I, being opposite of the ignorant hipocritical American, has video proof of the effective French army.
EPT
