Does anyone else think it's a shame how often the Korean War gets overlooked?

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

While I certainly agree that a Korean War redux would be a humanitarian catastrophe, and unpredictably destabilizing, the notion that the North can obliterate Seoul and overrun most of the peninsula vastly overstates North Korea capabilities. ...

That's all true but the most effective armament in N. Korea's stable is actually old fashioned conventional cold war era artillery. 120mm self propelled, 152mm howitzers, 240mm mobile rocket launchers. These are more lethal than anything N. Korea has nuke-wise. All pointed at Seoul and 40 or 50 miles past the DMZ, they will lay a swath of destruction for S. Korea. After that of course, they will be knocked out by S. Korean Air Force. It all depends how fast N. Korea can advance and for S. Korea to mobilize. It's not simply "hey move this tank to the front lines". It takes time to mobilize forces - you have military forces disbursed - at home, maybe out of the country, you have equipment in various stages of maintenance, you have to organize supplies, you have plans and decisions to make by leaders, etc.

[gmagoo]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Mr. Magoo - S. Korea can survive an invasion on there own I think, but it will be a mess. They have a strong military - the fact that you didn't know that back when you made some posts earlier indicates some level of ignorance on the politics and geography of Korea on your part. The problem is a whole lot of people will die in the mean time, North Korea can overrun the majority of Korea quickly and it would result in another "Pusan perimeter" event, Seoul is close to the border and can be flattened by conventional artillery shooting from across the border. A whole lot of people will die very quickly.

American troops are not there for defense really, but as a deterrent. North Korea knows if they try to pierce that barrier of Americans on the DMZ, killing a bunch of American troops in the process, it doesn't mean simply losing another war and retreating back to the DMZ, but self-destruction. Actually, it might be time to pull out American troops, but it must be done carefully and with the proper structure in place for immediate support to Korea - again to prevent war.

We have no strategic interests there and never did. Have you ever wondered why we spend as much on the military as the next 10 big spenders? Ike warned us.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by gmagoo

We have no strategic interests there and never did. Have you ever wondered why we spend as much on the military as the next 10 big spenders? Ike warned us.

In terms of strategic interest - well in the 50's it was debatable, as the Korean Penensilu post WWII got caught up in the cold war domino theory. If Korea fell what would have happened? Millions of Koreans would be living in an opressive and authoritative regime yeah, but that is nothing new as world affairs go. The threat was actually Japan, and that was our strategic link to the far Pacific. I think there were debates at the time on if the US should get involved or not. In the end, the fear of Japan security won out.

Now however - we do have a strategic interest there absolutely as North Korea is striving for nuclear weapons and ballistic technology to deliver them, which is a strategic threat to the US, also South Korea is a major trading partner and ally to the US. There is also a mutual defense treaty between our two nations - i.e. we are obligated to come to there aid. That doesn't mean troops in S. Korea, but that our interests must closely align with S. Korean interests.