Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

If the U.S. military were to pull out of the ROK, I'd...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

If the U.S. military were to pull out of the ROK, I'd...
Drop everything and get the next plane out myself.
14%
 14%  [ 8 ]
Prepare for a slow but orderly withdrawal soon.
17%
 17%  [ 10 ]
Stay, but would move to Busan
3%
 3%  [ 2 ]
Stay, but be much more ready to evacuate.
7%
 7%  [ 4 ]
Stay, nothing would change.
52%
 52%  [ 30 ]
Stay, but move to Paju for front row seats.
5%
 5%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 57

Author Message
TexasChicken



Joined: 05 Jul 2007

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:00 pm    Post subject: US forces withdrawal Reply with quote

I would pin the maple leaf button I bought during the Mad Cow protests. Travel to Paju with my handmade North Korean Flag and dance in the streets as I welcome my new overseers!

T.C.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rollo wrote:



But if any one is silly enough to believe that a South korean army could stand up to a Chinese backed North korean army , lets see what happened in Vietnam. the U.s. trained, U.s. equipped armey lasted a few weeks after the u.s. forces left. Advanced Soviet and Chinese equipment and hardened North Vietmanese troops crushed the South Vietnamese.

.


And why would U.S forces leave south Korea?
You are aware that the U.S and South Korea have a Mutual Defense Treaty which obliges one to help the other. Were the U.S. to withdraw ,other countries would realize that THEIR treaties with the U.S were not worth the paper it was printed on and likely decide to go nuclear. Thus destroying all the U.S effort over the years to prevent proliferation.
After all if the U.S gave up S. Korea who could be sure they wouldn't be the next sacrifical lamb?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes !! yes!! I understand that the north is not going to invade. All I am saying is that if it did come down with China's support, and no U.S. intervention South korea would not be that difficult to roll over. Remember it took 500,000 Americans about 300,000 Brits and commonwealth troops and a lot of Nato forces to stop the Chinese last time and that was a Chinese army not underpinned with a huge economy.

This is all political kabuki anyway. The sad part is the north has proven it has no compunction about killing. So some sort of sick bloody attack is likely, but not war.

the threats to nuke the U.s. are unusual and seem crazy.
its a poker game, a haggling session and China and the north want something. Its the geography, korea is in the middle and the bullies use it to play geo political games.

yeah the old maple leaf, sure some peasant from the North is not going to bayonet you because you have a clothe tree leaf pinned to your backpack! Hah!

if i were in charge i would beef up U.s. naval forces in the region, hit the Norths Nuke facilities with b-52 strikes and dare China to start. there are some thinkers in the u.S. military establishment who think it better to have it out with China now while we have a clear upper hand then wait till things are more even.

If the u.s. were to leave korea it would be because there has been huge changes in the geopolitical sphere. something massive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EZE



Joined: 05 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hiamnotcool wrote:
Yeah I know what it means. I just find it amusing when people study it for a few years and think they have all the answers. You are talking like war is played by some set of rules that were decided by a history book.


I have to agree with hiamnotcool.

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan went absolutely nothing like the top "military scientists" said they would. And now they're saying they'd win in Iran in three weeks when the current "three week war" is well into its second decade. http://rt.com/news/us-military-presence-iran-419/

Military scientists have been proven no more accurate or reliable than palmreaders, psychics, horoscopes, fortune cookies, or crystal balls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

World Traveler wrote:
How was this ship unable to detect the North Korean submarine? (A: Because NK has good military technology.)


Actually, the current theory is that the Nork sub was stationary and waited for the ship to pass. Unless the Cheonan was using active sonar (unlikely), the Nork submarine would have been rather hard to detect.

This isn't good technology, it was taking good advantage of surprise in a peacetime setting.

Quote:
How does what anything I wrote automatically invalidate what Time Magazine and the New York Times wrote?

By calling the Cheonan a battleship it betrays a massive ignorance of military knowledge which in turn, brings into question your ability to analyze articles like the one in Time and judge their worth.

It's like not knowing the difference between the cardiovascular system and the skeletal system and expecting medical personnel to take you seriously.

Quote:
but they couldn't. The U.S. protected Taiwan by providing weapons and training.


And the US weapons and training now possessed by S. Korea would just vanish? The Mongolian military wouldn't be overrun by China? Yet, the same reason that China hasn't annexed Mongolia is the same reason it wouldn't do so with Korea if the US left one day- it just doesn't make any sense to do so.

Quote:
Steelrails, I don't know all the military terms. I just read news articles.


Well maybe you should spend some time researching the whole thing instead of just reading news articles and getting into arguments and making strong claims.

Quote:
According to wikipedia the Cheonan was a Pohang class corvette.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/PCC-783.jpg

Looks pretty big to me.


But a battleship it is not.

A corvette is the smallest type of ocean-going military vessel and straddle the line between a green-water and a blue-water navy. They are occasionally, not always, designed to engage air, surface, and subsurface targets, but their capability in doing so is usually limited. They are a usually an "affordable" way for a country to have multi-role ships, in large numbers. Of course, this usually comes at the cost of capability. However, there is a high degree of variance in capability of corvettes from navy to navy. Most lack multi-role capability and are designed more for stopping pirates and smugglers, others are focused more on a single role.

It is also appropriate to distinguish between "old" corvettes and the new LCS and 'stealthy' models that have been recently launched. Those vessels are much more capable and are a generational advance.

A "battleship" is the largest class of vessel designed to engage other surface vessels. It is a descendent of the 'Dreadnaught' , a revolutionary type of warship developed about a decade before WWI. The dreadnaught featured large caliber guns in multiple revolving turrets and was a massive qualitative leap. Battleships took this concept and optimized it into 6-12 guns from 14-16 inches and a speed of about 30 knots with heavy armor. From WWI to the beginning of WWII the battleship was considered the queen of the ocean, but the development of the aircraft carrier and battles such as The Bismark Sinking, Taranto, Pearl Harbor, and the sinking of the Repulse & Prince of Wales revealed that the battleship was highly vulnerable to aircraft. While battleships did engage in several surface-surface engagements, it was clear that its time had passed. The battleship did retain a role in coastal bombardment and served in that war through Gulf War 1.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
young_clinton



Joined: 09 Sep 2009

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EZE wrote:
hiamnotcool wrote:
Yeah I know what it means. I just find it amusing when people study it for a few years and think they have all the answers. You are talking like war is played by some set of rules that were decided by a history book.


I have to agree with hiamnotcool.

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan went absolutely nothing like the top "military scientists" said they would. And now they're saying they'd win in Iran in three weeks when the current "three week war" is well into its second decade. http://rt.com/news/us-military-presence-iran-419/

Military scientists have been proven no more accurate or reliable than palmreaders, psychics, horoscopes, fortune cookies, or crystal balls.


They are accurate in a manner of speaking. But the strategists don't include insurgencies in the planning. I find this to be incredible especially after the American experience in Vietnam.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

China is currently building five new bridges into North Korea. something that the Norks are not real happy about but can not stop. Including two railroad bridges. Wonder why??

Seriously the So Korean army would not last against a North Army backed by China also the ethnic koreans in China who would feel compelled to join the Norths' army. Rememer China does not have to get into the fight. They just blockade claiming that they do not want outside powers interfering in an internal Korean dispute. No oil no arms for the South.

In Vietnam not an insurgency the U.s. South Vietmanese faced a professional army that got massive backing from China and the U.S.S.. China had 300,000 troops in north Vietnam. Guerilla tactics were often used but backed by a lot of military muscle.

Actually insurgencies usualy don't win against committed professional armies.
Max Boot has written an interesting book about this,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Los Angeloser



Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Korea

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
And why would U.S forces leave south Korea?


Because S. Korea finally decided to stand on its own two feet for once and told the U.S. to leave. Then some of those who responded could change their minds depending on what their embassy tells them which might have something to do with whether they think S. Korea is capable of managing itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Los Angeloser wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
And why would U.S forces leave south Korea?


Because S. Korea finally decided to stand on its own two feet for once and told the U.S. to leave .



Which does and would not invalidate the Mutual Defense Treaty signed between the U.S and Korea which obliges one to come to the defense of the other if the other is attacked.

So the U.S would have to become involved if North Korea attacked. North Korea's not winning a conventional war against the U.S.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh yeah! i can see the U.S. being asked to leave and then still protecting South korea. No way that happens, unless Chinese troops get directly involved. South korea is a Chinese province within 60 days of u.s. troop withdrawal. Thats a fact. The South has nothing that could stop the north with Chinese help from rolling over it. Nothing.

This myth that South korea could stand up to the norks and China reminds me of the dangers of U.S. beef and mad cow. Remember the story Asians are more prone to mad cow disease , all that hooey.

To paraphrase Ho ho chi minh: its better to get a whiff of the U.s. latrine occasionally than to eat Chinese shit for a thousand years. The majority of South koreans understand this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page 10 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International