Koreas adopt military agreement

[Odin]

Recent events (read axis of evilness and such from Bushy) have made the north more beligerent in it's rhetoric but also more willing to bargin.

The whole axis thing was silly to begin with, I'll concede on it ramping up the rhetoric.

From what I've seen of the south from Seoul to the DMZ is less of a nation and more of an armed military base. With armed army check points. Tank bunkers along the highways, with tank traps. And every few kilometers along the main highways are 20 tonne concrete road blocks ready to be blown into position at a moments notice. (Redleg could tell you more on that, I believe he's been there) The possibility of military engagement is never far from the minds of the souths government. Yes the south does desire to live in peace. But that's what the sunshine policy, this rail deal, and all that martial hardware is all about.

That said it looks like there prepared for the worst case scenario anyway, on top of that thier economy is humming along fine so they ought to be able to afford to field a division or two more if needed.

[lars573]

The amount of US troops in the south is neglible from a military preparedness stand point. 29,086 troops. 90% army and air force personel. Compare that too the ROK's 686,000 active troops (conscripts on 24-28 month terms depending on branch). ~81% of that army, 560,000 . With a total force (IE including reserves) of 5,209,000. Really the whole point of having the US troops there on the Korean DMZ is so that if the north attacks they have to attack the US too.

The whole axis thing was silly to begin with, I'll concede on it ramping up the rhetoric.

And I should add that Iraq has made an impression on Krazy Kim and co. too. If there is one good thing Iraq proved it's that the US can be reiled enough to use force.

[Odin]

The amount of US troops in the south is neglible from a military preparedness stand point. 29,086 troops. 90% army and air force personel. Compare that too the ROK's 686,000 active troops (conscripts on 24-28 month terms depending on branch). ~81% of that army, 560,000 . With a total force (IE including reserves) of 5,209,000. Really the whole point of having the US troops there on the Korean DMZ is so that if the north attacks they have to attack the US too.

Agreed, but induldge me for a minute. If the North did attack who would benefit more from the U.S. being present and part of the foray? (its semi rhetorical as I assume you know where I am heading). The south has the most to gain here, with a minimal investment. I concede this was a nice situation during the cold war, but thats over with now, and this deployment, while a deterrant, is also an antagonist.

I understand the value of having troops there in terms of our allies, but it hardly is in the U.S. best intrest at this time. If the limited data we have is true, the north is starving to death anyway, there ready for a deal and at the table. The south can handle the invasion scenario, and we know it wouldnt matter if the US had 30,000 or 30 troops we come in on the side of the south.

And I should add that Iraq has made an impression on Krazy Kim and co. too. If there is one good thing Iraq proved it's that the US can be reiled enough to use force.

True, I wonder if Mr Chavez has ever heard of granada, or panama? Thankfully a lot of players on the world stage continue to underestimate the willingness of the U.S. to actually go the distance. right or wrong we do act, accept for that mess in Iran with Mr Carter, and somalia with Mr Clinton but there democrats after all. did I really say that ? ;0

[lars573]

Agreed, but induldge me for a minute. If the North did attack who would benefit more from the U.S. being present and part of the foray? (its semi rhetorical as I assume you know where I am heading). The south has the most to gain here, with a minimal investment. I concede this was a nice situation during the cold war, but thats over with now, and this deployment, while a deterrant, is also an antagonist.

That's the rub though isn't it. On the Korean penninsula the cold war didn't really end. It's nearly the same situation between the Koreas in 2007 as it was in 1957.

I understand the value of having troops there in terms of our allies, but it hardly is in the U.S. best intrest at this time. If the limited data we have is true, the north is starving to death anyway, there ready for a deal and at the table. The south can handle the invasion scenario, and we know it wouldnt matter if the US had 30,000 or 30 troops we come in on the side of the south.

True they are at the table now. But they could decide that a war to try and grab it all in last desperate stab is the way to go. Not likely but...

True, I wonder if Mr Chavez has ever heard of granada, or panama? Thankfully a lot of players on the world stage continue to underestimate the willingness of the U.S. to actually go the distance. right or wrong we do act, accept for that mess in Iran with Mr Carter, and somalia with Mr Clinton but there democrats after all. did I really say that ? ;0

Chavez hasn't really done much beyond rattle his saber. For 3 years straight.

[Samurai Waki]

I mean... I think everybody is completely dismissing the fact the the ROK does indeed have a military, and a substantial one at that, and is within reasonable measures, fully capable of defending itself from the PROK. I believe that Kim has more intelligence on the South, than the south does of the North (but I could be wrong), either way you put it, if Kim was investing in nuclear missiles, he wouldn't be pointing them at the South, he'd be firing that at the US and Japan, because any potential land acquisitions would be a wasted effort if Nukes were involved. I think ultimately Kim just wants to be LEFT THE HELL ALONE, by both the US and the ROK, but believes the only way to secure his power (and not die), is by reassuring the US and the South that they do have teeth, and if the situation arises, can bear them down upon the both.
Whatever the case may be, The North Koreans compromising with the south is only token effort, and there isn't good will involved. I believe when Kim starts feeling the noose tighten so to speak, when his Generals disapprove of the overall situation he changes the plan, so as to keep loyalty intact, and those guns don't turn on him. His soldiers need food, its time to be peaceable and compromising, his soldiers get fed, its time to shutter in again. Its a No-Win situation no matter how you look at it, and ultimately we'll have to see the Stalinist approach put to the wayside by the North, which could take Decades at least. Anyways, I'm fairly sure that the situation will continue as the way it has for quite some time, and eventually in the far future, both will look at each other, and wonder what the tiff was all about, of course this could be spurned on when the South is trotting around in Mech Warriors, and the North still has guys armed with RPG-7s, and AK Pop Guns.

[Odin]

Chavez hasn't really done much beyond rattle his saber. For 3 years straight.

My point was really to illistrate that the U.S. willingness to go to war (even in the smallest of extreme's Grenada) has value, and dosent mean we need to have troops present in order to ensure our participation.

Perhaps thats why all he has done is saber rattle, and thus my point, however I concede your point that the cold war hasnt really ended in the korea's. Generally its the acception to my theory of the cold war being over so the U.S. can take a new global military posture.