politics

Report warns of Asian arms race if Trump withdraws U.S. forces

57 Comments
By MATTHEW PENNINGTON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

More so of one that is already happening? I would say fear-mongering, as the US is not going to totally pull out of the region. No one, including Trump, is THAT daft.

Southeast Asian nations don’t want to be dominated by China, they don’t want to put all their eggs in the China basket, but they’ve had to because the pivot and rebalance were shallow and ultimately hollow,” he said.

Don't have much choice do they? Trump isn't wrong for wanting host countries to foot the bill of having troops stationed on their territory. If they want the protection of the US, they should pay for it. This isn't charity.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

If the Asian nations are already paying 50% or thereabouts what will be the incentive for them to pay more? Trump can threaten to pull US troops out and if called on it, he would (1) reduce our strategic forward operating base that has been established over the last 70 years (2) bring an awful lot if US servicemen and women back home where they are not needed, leading many to be leaving and seeking jobs (3) effectively hand east asia to China. Why then would Trump promise an increase in military spending, in ships for the USN if this is the scenario. The picture that Trump has sold to get votes really is contradictory and makes little sense.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

(1) reduce our strategic forward operating base that has been established over the last 70 years

Oh so it's all about the US and no one else. The countries in the region have benefited from the presence of the US over the past 70 years, but there comes a time when standing up on your own is better than always depending upon someone else to fight your battles for you.

The US can, and will continue to support the nations in the region, but the these countries have to step up as well and take responsibility for their own.

(2) bring an awful lot if US servicemen and women back home where they are not needed, leading many to be leaving and seeking jobs

Tell THAT to their wives, children and families that they are separated from.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Nice. A big windfall for the (Republican) armaments manufacturers in the US, and assembly-line jobs in the rust belt. Maybe Barry McGuire will even cut a new version of "Eve of Destruction" to accompany them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

YubaruNov. 16, 2016 - 07:17AM JST (1) reduce our strategic forward operating base that has been established over the last 70 years Oh so it's all about the US and no one else.

No. It was listed as an effect on the US. My post did not address benefits or advantages to the host nations.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

even as neighboring North Korea has conducted nuclear and missile tests with unprecedented intensity

Anyone intimately familiar with the situation will know that they typically conduct missile tests when the US is running massive war games (involving tens of thousands of troops, attack helicopters, etc) with South Korea's military.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The prez is going to go on a farewell tour reassuring everyone there will be no change.Really? After the way Trump lied and besmirched your name,how could you trust what he says? I would be telling everyone to have a plan B just in case or for when things change.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Fear not kids. Trump will not withdraw US troops from Japan. Geez, who writes this stuff? Silly.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Asian Arms race? Isn't it already on? Japanese eeapon manufacturers have been shocked when all Asian countries ordered competing which one was quicker while American booth was empty.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Anyone intimately familiar with the situation will know that they typically conduct missile tests when the US is running massive war games (involving tens of thousands of troops, attack helicopters, etc) with South Korea's military.

If you were familiar then you'd know shooting a couple Nodong missiles into the Sea of Japan like in previous years is completely unlike the more recent nuclear missile launches and tests. Also, trying to blame the US and ROK for running defensive drills bi-annually due to a hyper aggressive DPRK is ridiculous. Let's not forget who invaded who in the first place as well as remember that they're still technically in a state of war.

Toshiko is dead on, the Arms in Asia race had started years ago.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan cannot maintain a large standing army or reserve force, so the only acceptable deterrent is a large nuclear force. That is the only way Japan can expect complete security once Trump pulls out. Even if Trump stays, Japan should develop a few thousands nukes as America can no longer be expected to honour its alliance commitments

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No clearer message of wanting to help by saying "You gotta pay more". It's basically a protection (extortion) racket.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Japan are being naive if think the U.S. will defend Japan against RPC. China have already missiles with ICBM technology able to arrive U.S. territory in 30 minutes, 0% chance of U.S. take a risk when RPC aim your ICBM missiles for Washington

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The US will never pull out of Asia due to it's strategic location.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The US will never pull out of Asia due to ITS strategic location.

With a reactionary government led by the Polluter-in-Chief himself, all bets are off. I'm reminded of when a Danish politician named Moguls Gilstrup advocated replacing his country's army with an answerphone that played the recorded message "We surrender" in Russian. I think he was joking, but one never knows until it happens.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Perhaps the Japanese People suffer from the "Stockholm Syndrome" because I dont see a reason to having sympathy towards them. The U.S. Goverment has used its military influence to gain economic advantages such as the Plaza Accord, Privatization of Japan Post, TPP among other benefits and this will not end as long as U.S. maintains military bases on Japanese territory

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

ICBM are not the problem since once one nation shoots an ICBM no matter where it is headed all other nation is going to retaliate by shooting theirs.

That is how MAD works.

IRBM, MRBM and SRBM can be shot down with ABMs but Japan cannot retaliate after they are shot down which is the problem sending the wrong message that there are no consequences in lobbing missiles at Japan.

Japan does not necessarily need nukes but we certainly need to revise article 9.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Asia Foundation report

A CIA front organization.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/elite/asia_foundation.htm

"Fitzgerald and Gould emphasize the historical role of the "imperial brain trust" and covert war methods of the US during the Cold War, including, most prominently, that of propaganda and mysticism. Chapter 5, "A Background to Cold War Policy", is the longest, most heavily foot-noted, and, arguably, the most important. They also give important space to the role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and CIA-front organizations such as the Asia Foundation (which today still works extensively in and around Afghanistan).

"Large numbers of American intellectuals participated in [Asia] Foundation programs, and they - usually unwittingly - contributed to popularizing of CIA ideas about the Far East. Designed ... as an overseas propaganda operation, the Asia Foundation also was regularly guilty of propagandizing the American people with agency views on Asia."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE02Df01.html

Caveat lector.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I have often said people need exit plans if the US pulls out of Japan, trump winning makes the situation very unpredictable & make it a partial or full reality or nothing much will change.

As I said just recently though Japan & SKorea & its peoples will REALLY need to start thinking about all this, for over 7 decades they haven't had to pay much mind!!

As a non-US citizen its easy for me to see that the Far East & SE Asia would be VERY different today is the US presence was never here.

And if it downsizes or goes away, the status quo WILL change & not likely for the better

Exit strategies, dust them off, make one or you can roll the dice, we will be facing overly interesting times.

My guess is Japan & SKorea will end up paying more, if not.......who knows what trump will do.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

U.S. Relations With Japan.......US Department of State..

Japan is one of the world’s most successful democracies and largest economies. The U.S.-Japan Alliance is the cornerstone of U.S. security interests in Asia and is fundamental to regional stability and prosperity. The Alliance is based on shared vital interests and values, including: the maintenance of stability in the Asia-Pacific region: the preservation and promotion of political and economic freedoms; support for human rights and democratic institutions; and, the expansion of prosperity for the people of both countries and the international community as a whole.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm

What part of this statement does President Elect Donald J Trump fail to even acknowledge or understand.

This Fact sheet prepared by the US Department of State is crystal clear, the alliance, yes supported by treaty has evolved over time. The framework agreement, recognized as a joint approach to a shared five year package.

The Government of Japan and people, have proved beyond doubt that commitment means actions speak louder and words...The stakes couldn't be higher. The Government of Japan hosting risks Japan, it's people will be targeted in a first strike attack scenario. All it will take is confrontation in the South China Sea over these crazy weaponized sandcastles.

All the fears, highlighted by security analysts will be realized, leading to the Government of China declaring a Air Defence Identification Zone. Outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry has warned the Government of China of declaring an Air Defence Identification Zone will provoke a strong response.

The People of Japan are sticking their necks well out over the trenches, all in support of the US Government. For President Elect Donald J Trump to haggle like some spiv at a garage sale is politically unhinged.

I think 21st century medical expertise really needs pop that hair bonnet and examine whats lurking underneath.

South China Sea: The Case Against an ADIZ....

http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/south-china-sea-the-case-against-an-adiz/

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Picture these scenario; North Korea will attack South Korea, if Trump remove Us troops. After conquer, they try to destabilise Japan. China will conquer Taiwan. And Both case US cant do anything because Trump is businessman and why shoud he help and spend US live and money. So Japan will build nuclear weapon but do you guys think China will just watch. It will launch preemptive strike and conquer Japan while US troops depart and do nothing. All this will happen once Trump open his mouth and remove troops. Russia will attack Ukraine as Trump will say not in their interest and belong to Russia sphere of influence. Us remove from Nato, some east european country will kowtow to Russia and dump remaining Nato. Russia will conquer Poland due to former east bloc refuse to change allegiance. Nato small troops were ambushed and wipe out in Poland. Then Trump expanse his business empire under Trump names. Other countries deal with Trump related business else high Tarif. Ku klux clan raise to prominent position and control domestic security. They round up all black and illegals in Us and put them in the internment camp for their segregation.

So how does it feel to vote for Trump, deplorables.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Ballots are still being counted, and Hillary is currently up over Trump by nearly 1 million votes. While that will not change how the Electoral College decides the next president, it gives the lie to the claim that the American people prefer Trump.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The US should get its bases out of asia, Europe, and the ME. Let the rest of the world learn how to play nice without the US telling them how to do it. The idea that the US is to play the world's playground supervisor is utterly ridiculous.

North Korea will attack South Korea, if Trump remove Us troops. After conquer, they try to destabilise Japan.

Ridiculous. The south would wipe out the north in a matter of days.

China will conquer Taiwan.

And risk economic sanctions like Russia? I think not.

Russia will attack Ukraine

And risk even more isolation??

Russia will conquer Poland due to former east bloc refuse to change allegiance

Ridiculous. Poland is a part of the EU and so is most of the former bloc. They do that they risk an all out war with Europe.

Nato small troops were ambushed and wipe out in Poland. Then Trump expanse his business empire under Trump names. Other countries deal with Trump related business else high Tarif. Ku klux clan raise to prominent position and control domestic security. They round up all black and illegals in Us and put them in the internment camp for their segregation.

Woah Woah! Easy there chief! I hate Trump as much as you do, but lets not go overboard here, ok?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Maybe the Okinawans can get the reduction in force that America has been promising them for over 50 years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why is it so difficult for readers to come to grips with the concept that the US has 700+ military bases worldwide not to protect the countries in which they're located, but because it seeks to dominate the world by projecting military power, and because the military is an enormous sector of the US economy? Taking the US economy off its war footing for the first time since 1941 and reducing the size of its empire would lead to economic catastrophe. US bases are not their to protect allies, they're colonial outposts of the US empire.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Aly Rustom: Ridiculous. The south would wipe out the north in a matter of days.

The north won't have shot off all their nukes in their tests up to now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Current stockpile (usable and not) 15–22 nuclear weapons equivalents? (rough 2015 ISIS estimate)

It's no longer clear that the south could defeat the north at all.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Trump is not going to pull the US troops out of Japan, or any other Asian country, for that matter, He's more likely to increase them to secure his business interests in Asia, thus making this 'report' a bunch of hogwash propaganda!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's no longer clear that the south could defeat the north at all.

I'll bet on the South ANY day. Not only do they have a superior army, their population is more than DOUBLE the north's 50,801,405 to 24,895,000. And unlike the North, the population of the South is not starving with tens of thousands languishing in prisons. The North couldn't survive a confrontation with the south.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_North_Korea

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Aly Rustom: I'll bet on the South ANY day.

Last time nukes were used in war the receivers gave up entirely their idea of resisting to the death, after two were dropped.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@moderater. On the comment by Crucial after my comme t I believe crucial is writing d death threat on me.

Please check .I only wrote my observation of l Ne of conventions zi believe he was threatening me with death..

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Crucial: Toshiko is dead on, the Arms in Asia race had started years ago.

toshiko: @moderater. On the comment by Crucial after my comme t I believe crucial is writing d death threat on me. Please check .I only wrote my observation of l Ne of conventions zi believe he was threatening me with death..

No death threat. "Toshiko is dead on" means exactly this: "Toshiko is exactly right." Nothing to do with death threats.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Last time nukes were used in war the receivers gave up entirely their idea of resisting to the death, after two were dropped.

You're seriously trying to equate the US with NK? Seriously? Look, they can drop their nukes, but they will be utterly destroyed by the South. Using Hiroshima/Nagasaki examples does not work at all in this case

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Trump probably will not withdraw but force Abe to allow American companies to operate in Japan under similar T&C, which the Japanese companies enjoy in America, and in all probability he will be successful, his campaign was all about fair/equal rules of the game in any agreement/relation.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Checkbook diplomacy ends on January 20, 2017. Japan will no longer be able to just throw money at world problems...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Trump will not pull out US troops from Japan it is only threaten to kid Abe to pay him more money as punishing and humiliating Japan. USA needs the military bases in Japan and other weakened countries for strengthen its power and keeping his situation as the world's policeman and bully...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Note to Americans: Station troops in Japan and Japan pays part of the cost. Station troops in America and Americans pay all of the cost. You do the maths.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

North Korea will attack South Korea, if Trump remove Us troops. After conquer, they try to destabilise Japan.

You lost me right at the beginning with NK conquering SK. That will happen the day Haiti conquers the USA.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Trump should gradually send more troops home. Already that could be easily done as 90 % of the workforce are local national military labor contract employees paid by Japan. Many of the troops would rather be back in the US.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Last time nukes were used in war the receivers gave up entirely their idea of resisting to the death, after two were dropped.

It seems receiving the nuke bombs were part of deals that US accept Japan's surrender.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"The US will never pull out of Asia due to ITS strategic location."

"With a reactionary government led by the Polluter-in-Chief himself, all bets are off"

Or, with a $20 trillion national debt ( thanks, Obama) all bets are off.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Seems there has been an arms race in Asia long before Trump ever materialized as a potential US President.

Depending on where you source your info from, China are the world's 3rd largest Military, Japan 4th, India 5th, South Korea 7th, Taiwan 13th, Australia 15th, Thailand 16th, Indonesia 19th.....

Lot of things that go bang already in Asia. Bang-bang.

Is the US presence the only stabilizer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another nonsensical article. There is no "arms race". China is building up its military at a rapid pace, no matter what Trump does or does not.

Japan is saving military expenses, comfortably hiding behind the US military umbrella. Trump wants Japan to pay more for that, which is a reasonable request. If Japan does not want, Trump can reduce the presence, and as a result Abe will have to massively expand military spending. It is a simple and necessary choice.

But it is interesting to see that the Trump bashing in the suddenly critical media has already started, even months before he even takes office. Hurray --- we have a critical press again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump could pull US forces from Japan at anytime and you know what? China would do N-O-T-H-I-N-G except rattle sabres thereafter.

There is no threat from China ever doing anything other than sailing their ships close to other country's waters or flying near their airspace.

Wow everybody's so scared /sarcasm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey CrucialS,

trying to blame the US and ROK for running defensive drills bi-annually due to a hyper aggressive DPRK is ridiculous. Let's not forget who invaded who in the first place*

This shows how little the likes of you know-

[ One of the worst incidents preceded the Korean War, in 1948, when the new Syngman Rhee government installed in Seoul by the United States ordered its army to suppress a leftist revolt on Cheju Island. About 30,000 local people were gunned down...At Taejon, about 140kilometres south of Seoul, prisoners were shuttled out of the city's jail by the army and police, marched with hands bound to the edge of long trenches, made to lie down, and then shot with rifles. Their bodies were rolled in and covered. ] http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/south-korea-owns-up-to-brutal-past/2008/11/14/1226318928410.html

It's those incidents which caused the war to break out between the citizens of Korea and the US-backed Korean elite who had collaborated with the Japanese colonialists 1910-1945.

The US' military industrial complex makes billions per year by keeping the the region in a state of conflict...if you can't figure that out, you may as well hang out in Disneyland.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump may demand more payment from Japan. He will be the boss of pentagon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aly Rustom: You're seriously trying to equate the US with NK? Seriously? Look, they can drop their nukes, but they will be utterly destroyed by the South. Using Hiroshima/Nagasaki examples does not work at all in this case

It totally works, you can expect DPRK to try it, and how many cities do you think ROK will see nuked before it withdraws forces and negotiates?

tinawatanabe: It seems receiving the nuke bombs were part of deals that US accept Japan's surrender.

Never heard this before and it seems unnecessary and fantastical, and excusatory of the Japanese elite.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It totally works,

No it doesn't. It only works if the country in question is weak with a demoralized populace. The example you drew was with Japan does not work. The atomic bombs alone didn't cause Japan to surrender. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki .

The Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March 1945 was the single deadliest air raid of World War II,[2] greater than Dresden,[25] Hiroshima, or Nagasaki as single events.[26][27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Yet the Japanese surrendered after the Atomic bombs because they were already on the ropes and starving; AND the soviet union had JUST entered the war against them a day or so after Hiroshima and a day or two before Nagasaki. Timing was everything. Get your history right. It totally works is not a sensible argument.

you can expect DPRK to try it, and how many cities do you think ROK will see nuked before it withdraws forces and negotiates?

and how many cities do you think DPR will nuke before it gets overrun with the forces of the ROC? Too much TV mate.

North Korea will attack South Korea, if Trump remove Us troops. After conquer, they try to destabilise Japan. You lost me right at the beginning with NK conquering SK. That will happen the day Haiti conquers the USA.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks the North will conquer the South should also believe that Haiti can conquer the USA. Spot on.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Aly Rustom: Yet the Japanese surrendered after the Atomic bombs because they were already on the ropes and starving; AND the soviet union had JUST entered the war against them a day or so after Hiroshima and a day or two before Nagasaki.

The Japanese cabinet (and emperor) thought the USA had 100 nukes ready to use against them, the figure Japan received from a captured US pilot under torture ...

At around 02:00 (August 10), Suzuki finally addressed Emperor Hirohito, asking him to decide between the two positions. The participants later recollected that the Emperor stated: ...

... (what the participants recollected the Emperor stated) ...

According to the participants, the Emperor did not mention at all what you consider to be pertinent factors: Russia, the impending Russian invasion, the firebombings, or the starvation of the populace (we can guess he wasn't in danger of starvation himself).

What he did mention was the newly-seen 'increased destructiveness of the atomic bomb' and the lack of progress on completion of beach fortifications along eastern Chiba.

The WWII Japanese were fanatic, and hardened under severe firebombing, but they didn't surrender until the two atomic bombs were dropped. Contrast that with modern 1st-world populations in Asia (which North Korea is not). They might very quickly overrun the DPRK with the use of modern warfare technology. But the DPRK has been testing launches from roads next to underground bunkers holding missiles. It's not at all certain they'd be overrun before they could force a stalemate or even a defeat. Besides which they've got the cities of China as hostages.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

According to the participants, the Emperor did not mention at all what you consider to be pertinent factors: Russia, the impending Russian invasion, the firebombings, or the starvation of the populace

Not just what I consider. What proper studies have shown:

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[citation needed] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, they reported: There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.[74][75]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Japan.27s_leaders_refused_to_surrender

In fact, the atomic bombings had little to do with Japan's surrender. If the US had dropped the bombs shortly after pearl harbor or any time before the battle of midway, the Japanese would not have surrendered.

The WWII Japanese were fanatic,

The military was. The people were just like sheep following the sheephearder.

and hardened under severe firebombing

There is absolutely no evidence of that. The Japanese were already making overt gestures to the Russians to mediate a peace between Japan and the Allies. Then, when the russians attacked in Manchuko, THAT'S when the Japanese knew it was game over.

Contrast that with modern 1st-world populations in Asia (which North Korea is not). They might very quickly overrun the DPRK with the use of modern warfare technology.

Of course they would.

But the DPRK has been testing launches from roads next to underground bunkers holding missiles. It's not at all certain they'd be overrun before they could force a stalemate or even a defeat.

They would be overrun in a very short time. Kim Un is not his grandfather. There are already signs that the regime is becoming unravelled. There have been record numbers of defections. This is a tinfoil dictatorship vs a developed economy and army. Any war would see TONS of defections on the North's side. Personally I don't think it would take more than 3 days for the south to subdue the north; unless of course China jumps in.

Besides which they've got the cities of China as hostages.

Come again?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It was the Emperor's decision to surrender, and the Emperor said what he said: 'atomic bomb'. He didn't say what all the johnnie-come-latelies are trying to work into the post-analysis, to suit their own agendas, '... Russia ... starvation ... (whatever) ...'.

The bomb survey was taken after the war and wasn't it biased against the bomb as per Admiral Nimitz's and/or Air Force general Curtis LeMay's own inclinations against the bomb, and as per the post-bomb horror of the USA elite? IIRC: Nimitz wanted to put the Navy ahead of the Air Force in post-war budget infighting. LeMay didn't want to use the bomb at all, he wanted to widen the firebombing campaign against many more Japanese cities and keep bombing until they were pounded into submission with nothing left to arise with, as Germany had been dealt with.

ar: Come again? (re Chinese cities as hostages)

People in China are worried about DPRK having nukes and using them against China. I don't know that it's allowed to get into the news. I only know what I've heard from Chinese.

ar: Of course they would. (ROK win against DPRK)

It's not 'of course'. ROK doesn't have nukes. So they don't have nukes on or near the border. DPRK may. Even this South Korean think tank says DPRK has the stronger military and would

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0104/North-Korea-military-has-an-edge-over-South-but-wouldn-t-win-a-war-study-finds

Seoul, South Korea — North Korea's military strategy is superior to the defensive posture of its affluent neighbor to the South, an independent think-tank said on Wednesday, giving Pyongyang the edge in the early days of any war on the divided peninsula. ... The Seoul-based Korea Economic Research Institute said in a report that in 2011 North Korea operated a 1.02-million-strong army and a record number of tanks, warships and air defense artillery. Total military personnel strength is 1.2 million. ... "The depressing reality is it would not be entirely wrong to say North Korea's military strength is stronger," the institute said. ... "We need to remember that the North is far superior in terms of the number of troops, and especially the North's military is structured in its formation and deployment with the purpose of an offensive war." ...

And, this article includes NO consideration that North Korea might use its nukes immediately, defensively along the DMZ and offensively against ROK cities.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It was the Emperor's decision to surrender, and the Emperor said what he said: 'atomic bomb'. He didn't say what all the johnnie-come-latelies are trying to work into the post-analysis, to suit their own agendas, '... Russia ... starvation ... (whatever) ...'.

Because it doesn't fit into your interpretation.. like it or not, there were a lot of factors that led to the defeat of Japan- the blockade and YES starvation of the people, the consistent firebombing of their major cities, the lack of fuel, the lack of money, the defeat of Germany and Italy, the entry of Russia, and so on. They didn't even have enough fuel to fuel their planes to put up a modest resistence. To place the defeat of Japan on the atomic bombs by themselves is to not have a clue regarding history. And like I said before, had they dropped the bombs BEFORE things went south for Japan, there would have been NO surrender. In fact, it would have made the Japanese even more pro war, and that's exactly what would happen if NK tries that with SK.

Seoul, South Korea — North Korea's military strategy is superior to the defensive posture of its affluent neighbor to the South, an independent think-tank said on Wednesday, giving Pyongyang the edge in the early days of any war on the divided peninsula. ... The Seoul-based Korea Economic Research Institute said in a report that in 2011 North Korea operated a 1.02-million-strong army and a record number of tanks, warships and air defense artillery. Total military personnel strength is 1.2 million. ... "The depressing reality is it would not be entirely wrong to say North Korea's military strength is stronger," the institute said. ... "We need to remember that the North is far superior in terms of the number of troops, and especially the North's military is structured in its formation and deployment with the purpose of an offensive war." ... And, this article includes NO consideration that North Korea might use its nukes immediately, defensively along the DMZ and offensively against ROK cities

Here is a better article than those so called "think Tanks " that are utterly useless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11603665/North-Korea-v-South-Korea-How-the-countries-armed-forces-compare.html

Yet an abundance of soldiers carrying light arms does not translate into military dominance. North Korea’s armed forces might be immense, but their weapons and equipment are largely obsolete. On paper, the Stalinist state’s air force possesses 563 combat-capable aircraft; in reality, every one of these planes was grounded for a short period in 2014 thanks to problems with maintenance and serviceability. “North Korea remains reliant on a predominantly obsolescent equipment inventory across all three services,” is the verdict of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The fact that North Korea is outclassed in almost every field of conventional warfare means that its threats against the South are almost always expressed in terms of “sending down a rain of fire” or some such Pyongyang-like language. It has been assumed for decades that a war would be triggered by a pre-emptive attack using the North’s large arsenal of missiles, notably a variant of the old Soviet Scud, on the South’s cities and civilian population.

South Korea’s much smaller armed forces, by contrast, benefit from some of the best American-supplied weapons and equipment, including more than 2,000 tanks and hundreds of F5, F15 and F16 fighter jets and fighter bombers.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

AR: Because it doesn't fit into your interpretation.. like it or not, there were a lot of factors that led to the defeat of Japan- the blockade ... (list) ...

All that (list) happened and they STILL didn't surrender and the cabinet was STILL split and arguing about surrendering until the exact moment when the Emperor said: 'atomic bombs, so we will surrender'.

Your arms link says:

The fact that North Korea is outclassed in almost every field of conventional warfare

Still ignoring that North Korea has nukes and may use them offensively and defensively. It's still not in your equation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

All that (list) happened and they STILL didn't surrender and the cabinet was STILL split and arguing about surrendering until the exact moment when the Emperor said: 'atomic bombs, so we will surrender'.

Again, had the bombs been dropped in the BEGINNING of the war, they wouldn't have surrendered.

Still ignoring that North Korea has nukes and may use them offensively and defensively. It's still not in your equation.

NOt at all. I just don't think that nukes will decide the outcome of the war.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Aly Rustom: Again, had the bombs been dropped in the BEGINNING of the war, they wouldn't have surrendered.

ROK has 15 cities over 500K population today, DPRK has an estimated 15-22 nukes. They could bomb half or all the cities in ROK and still have some left over, for border defense and suicide pills.

If the USA had nuked every major city in Japan, say over 100K in population for 1940's equivalence, you don't think they'd have surrendered? For one thing, Japan probably didn't have much of an industrial base outside the islands, at any time during the war. Nothing compared to what was at home.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

ROK has 15 cities over 500K population today, DPRK has an estimated 15-22 nukes. They could bomb half or all the cities in ROK and still have some left over, for border defense and suicide pills.

They wouldn't even get the chance to do it. The south would run them down with conventional weapons. Nukes aren't that easy or quick to launch. By the time they even tried, the south would have invaded, controlled, and neutralized the North.

If the USA had nuked every major city in Japan, say over 100K in population for 1940's equivalence, you don't think they'd have surrendered?

Depends on ALOT of things. ALOT of factors go into whether nukes would have gotten them to surrender. And if it was so easy, why didn't the US use them against the North or China for that matter during the Korean war? They still had a monopoly on nukes then.

You need to learn ALOT more about military weapons and stategy. Your arguments are just plain wrong, and excuse me for saying this, a little childish.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

AR: Nukes aren't that easy or quick to launch. By the time they even tried, the south would have invaded, controlled, and neutralized the North.

The cities aren't moving around. The launch trajectories and procedures can be planned years in advance, it's not like shooting at a moving tank. As far as invasion, it's not going to be a walkover. And the DPRK are free to have mined their own side of the zone with nukes.

AR: And if it was so easy, why didn't the US use them against the North or China for that matter during the Korean war?

Note the survey you posted the quote from, and Eisenhower's quote about how the bomb didn't have to be dropped. This was post-bomb regret and there was strong aversion to use the bomb again, aversion not only from the left-wing intelligentsia. Note as well the Korean war was a minor war as compared to the Japanese war and especially to the prospect of an invasion of Japan with unknown outcome. The Vietnam and Korean wars were supported by the USA to prop up toppling dominoes, not to prevent an eventual invasion of the USA, as a recovery by an unconquered Japan might have resulted in. Why open another age of nuclear weapons use over a minor war?

All your strategy is based on conventional weapons doctrine and excludes the impact of use of nukes on cities and on troops.

AR: Your arguments are just plain wrong, and excuse me for saying this, a little childish.

Really? Seems your whole premise avoids the possibility of DPRK's use of nukes, of the relative softness of the leadership and the population of ROK vs DPRK, and the characteristics of authority in the two countries. If you leave out all the inconvenient factors, of course you'll get the results you want.

Look at population density maps of the two countries. Most of ROK's core cities are concentrated and near the border. DPRK doesn't have much, but also doesn't have much near the border. Also consider how much Dear Leader is likely to care about population losses. He doesn't care about them now and they're not even fighting!

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/09/bright-lights-big-city/

(ROK population density and night-time lights maps)

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/downloads/maps/grump-v1/grump-v1-population-density/prkdens.jpg

(DPRK population density map)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The cities aren't moving around. The launch trajectories and procedures can be planned years in advance, it's not like shooting at a moving tank. As far as invasion, it's not going to be a walkover. And the DPRK are free to have mined their own side of the zone with nukes.

But the troops are. And as far as an invasion, yes it's going to be a walkover.

Note the survey you posted the quote from, and Eisenhower's quote about how the bomb didn't have to be dropped. This was post-bomb regret and there was strong aversion to use the bomb again, aversion not only from the left-wing intelligentsia. Note as well the Korean war was a minor war as compared to the Japanese war and especially to the prospect of an invasion of Japan with unknown outcome. The Vietnam and Korean wars were supported by the USA to prop up toppling dominoes, not to prevent an eventual invasion of the USA, as a recovery by an unconquered Japan might have resulted in. Why open another age of nuclear weapons use over a minor war?

No. The atomic bombs were completely unnecessary. I recommend reading Oliver Stone's History of the world on this subject

All your strategy is based on conventional weapons doctrine and excludes the impact of use of nukes on cities and on troops.

Again, my strategy includes the use of them, but unlike you I don't exclude other factors.

Really? Seems your whole premise avoids the possibility of DPRK's use of nukes, of the relative softness of the leadership and the population of ROK vs DPRK, and the characteristics of authority in the two countries. If you leave out all the inconvenient factors, of course you'll get the results you want.

No. You are leaving ALL the factors out EXCEPT for the nukes. That's why you're getting the results YOU want.

Look at population density maps of the two countries. Most of ROK's core cities are concentrated and near the border. DPRK doesn't have much, but also doesn't have much near the border. Also consider how much Dear Leader is likely to care about population losses. He doesn't care about them now and they're not even fighting!

It doesn't matter. In a war, everyone in SK will be drafted and the population density will shift. You said the cities can't move. They don't have to. Their populations will. Its called war.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites