Archived The Pentagon starts planning to base more troops in Europe (militarytimes.com)
submitted ago by FrogMantra
Posted by: FrogMantra
Posting time: 4.8 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 151
SCP: 8
8 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived The Pentagon starts planning to base more troops in Europe (militarytimes.com)
submitted ago by FrogMantra
view the rest of the comments →
[–] forgetmyname ago
South korea / Japan too. Why should 20,000 americans die just so they can take over the north korean dirt farmers?
[–] AlkaiserSoze ago
Actually, NK is a pivotal point in the Asiatic area. I have researched it quite a bit and this is how I interpret the situation:
So, while SK and Japan are allies, NK is effectively a better strategic position for the US as it's right on Chinas backdoor. While we currently maintain acceptable ties to China, it's still a case of if war were to occur then it would be preferable to have troops stationed right there on their Eastern front. This is why US and China have gone back and forth with tolerating NK as they're hoping for it to collapse and then claim it.
In the case for the US, it would reunify Korea and we would have a valuable ally against China. If China were to obtain NK first then this would give them the ability to take SK. Granted, America and SK would wage a long range ballistics/artillery engagement against the forces but the people of SK would suffer and increase strains between Asian countries and America.
You're also assuming America would immediately throw the stationed personnel directly into a fight with NK. This is incorrect. In the event of an NK/SK showdown, most of the engagement would be over quickly as NK would simply rain down with artillery which is already positioned to fire upon SK. In response, SK/US would fire back with artillery from naval vessels. While everyone is a little unsure of NKs weapons technology, it isn't likely that NK would be able to sink those vessels.
With that being said, however, everyone kind of wants to avoid a confrontation with NK, even China. If NK attacked SK, China would likely back NK with the hope that they could secure the land after Korea as a whole falls. The second Pyongyang falls, Chinese forces would move in to occupy the territory and SK would be in ruins which means American forces would face a situation where they may have to face off against China in a military confrontation. Sure, we could continue to rain down with naval long-range, we'd also have to deal with the fact that China has much better long-range capabilities than NK does. This would also upset economic ties with China. While that could be seen as a good thing as America would be forced to produce a lot of their own goods (resulting in more jobs, perhaps), the risk of a World War with China as the enemy would not be worth it.
In summary, the whole NK thing isn't just about reunification of Korea and making up for the US fuckup made all those decades ago but it's really about maintaining geo-political and economic stability in that region. Were NK to collapse on its own, we'd stand a better chance of avoiding a military confrontation with China without resulting in a large economic loss vis a vis manufacturing/trade in/with China.