|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
It's actually not a problem of the ratio between pro- and anti-U.S., you can't draw a clear line between two camps among Korean population.
There's this superficial nationalistic reason Koreans would say they don't want American troops on Korean soil. It hurts Koreans' collective ego that a sovereign nation has to have a major presence of foreign military, especially when the alliance is more of dependence than of an equal footing like, say, USAF presence in England.
On the other hand, Koreans are pragmatic enough to accept that it is beneficial to Korea to be able to 'tap into' American reinforcements' firepower in case of emergency, by keeping one American foot on the peninsula. This is of course the well-known concept of 'trip-wire'. Otherwise, more investments in the military have to be made, government coffers would bleed. That's where the U.S. complains about Korea's 'free-ride' on defense.
One persistent incarnation of this issue is the zig-zag over the wartime operational command of the combined forces. On the other hand, there's an inside joke among the Koreans - most of whom served as conscripts in the Korean military one way or another - that their distrust in the officer corps and senior NCOs in the Korean military is so widespread from their experience that it's better to let the U.S. take command than to go into a war alone under Korea's own chain of command.
Nevertheless, you shouldn't expect to hear such a self-deprecating perspective in your casual discussion with any Korean, since there's that Korean ego being at stake.
In summary, Koreans haven't figured their **** out yet, either on the alliance or on the contingency plan with the NK regime or on the bigger picture of regional balance of power. They understand the status quo, they're comfortable within it at the small expense of pride, so they'll keep tiptoeing with this dilemma until a big external change or shock takes place. |
Re: inside joke part.....
So in all the conversations over the years I've had with Korean men that served, thinking that the ROK could most likely hold off the NORKS (conventional only) for a good while without any help from the Americans... Was I deluded, or just didn't understand what they really meant?
Sometimes they'd mention air power, and that the south could beat them easily. I'm confused. Are the Norks that good? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jake_Kim
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Died By Bear wrote: |
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
It's actually not a problem of the ratio between pro- and anti-U.S., you can't draw a clear line between two camps among Korean population.
There's this superficial nationalistic reason Koreans would say they don't want American troops on Korean soil. It hurts Koreans' collective ego that a sovereign nation has to have a major presence of foreign military, especially when the alliance is more of dependence than of an equal footing like, say, USAF presence in England.
On the other hand, Koreans are pragmatic enough to accept that it is beneficial to Korea to be able to 'tap into' American reinforcements' firepower in case of emergency, by keeping one American foot on the peninsula. This is of course the well-known concept of 'trip-wire'. Otherwise, more investments in the military have to be made, government coffers would bleed. That's where the U.S. complains about Korea's 'free-ride' on defense.
One persistent incarnation of this issue is the zig-zag over the wartime operational command of the combined forces. On the other hand, there's an inside joke among the Koreans - most of whom served as conscripts in the Korean military one way or another - that their distrust in the officer corps and senior NCOs in the Korean military is so widespread from their experience that it's better to let the U.S. take command than to go into a war alone under Korea's own chain of command.
Nevertheless, you shouldn't expect to hear such a self-deprecating perspective in your casual discussion with any Korean, since there's that Korean ego being at stake.
In summary, Koreans haven't figured their **** out yet, either on the alliance or on the contingency plan with the NK regime or on the bigger picture of regional balance of power. They understand the status quo, they're comfortable within it at the small expense of pride, so they'll keep tiptoeing with this dilemma until a big external change or shock takes place. |
Re: inside joke part.....
So in all the conversations over the years I've had with Korean men that served, thinking that the ROK could most likely hold off the NORKS (conventional only) for a good while without any help from the Americans... Was I deluded, or just didn't understand what they really meant?
Sometimes they'd mention air power, and that the south could beat them easily. I'm confused. Are the Norks that good? |
What you've heard is more or less in line with the scenario of OPLAN 5027, a total war between the North and the South. In it, the South's front line divisions take the first blow as cannon-fodders and lose 50-80% of combat capability in the early days of the conflict. The time they buy is used in mobilizing reservists and reconstituting those front-line units, so that they can hold off the initial blitzkrieg of the NK. And the scenario goes, about one-month into the war, reinforcements from the U.S. mainland start arriving in the southern ports of the peninsula, start pushing north, and finish off the NK regime in Pyongyang at about 2 months in.
Korean forces have been exercising based on the numerous variations of this doctrine year in and year out, for the lack of other ways to predict and prepare for the future. Thus it's not surprising that many Koreans took in the basis of this reasonably conservative concept.
But seriously, it is rather unlikely that a country twice the population and tens of times bigger in economy cannot take down an impoverished neighbor who may be good for only the first strike and very, very short blitzkrieg. Furthermore, the setting of the war game scenario itself, that of a conventional total war, has become more and more questionable in reality.
So, as for the inside joke, you can understand it as an average Korean's frustration with all the incompetence, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness that one witnesses over the course of his service in the Korean military, rather than he'd actually believe that 'NK is that good.' For all we know, NK forces might be nothing more than the most successfully camouflaged house of cards that will collapse within hours or days under a real test.
Last edited by Jake_Kim on Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That makes sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
| Died By Bear wrote: |
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
It's actually not a problem of the ratio between pro- and anti-U.S., you can't draw a clear line between two camps among Korean population.
There's this superficial nationalistic reason Koreans would say they don't want American troops on Korean soil. It hurts Koreans' collective ego that a sovereign nation has to have a major presence of foreign military, especially when the alliance is more of dependence than of an equal footing like, say, USAF presence in England.
On the other hand, Koreans are pragmatic enough to accept that it is beneficial to Korea to be able to 'tap into' American reinforcements' firepower in case of emergency, by keeping one American foot on the peninsula. This is of course the well-known concept of 'trip-wire'. Otherwise, more investments in the military have to be made, government coffers would bleed. That's where the U.S. complains about Korea's 'free-ride' on defense.
One persistent incarnation of this issue is the zig-zag over the wartime operational command of the combined forces. On the other hand, there's an inside joke among the Koreans - most of whom served as conscripts in the Korean military one way or another - that their distrust in the officer corps and senior NCOs in the Korean military is so widespread from their experience that it's better to let the U.S. take command than to go into a war alone under Korea's own chain of command.
Nevertheless, you shouldn't expect to hear such a self-deprecating perspective in your casual discussion with any Korean, since there's that Korean ego being at stake.
In summary, Koreans haven't figured their **** out yet, either on the alliance or on the contingency plan with the NK regime or on the bigger picture of regional balance of power. They understand the status quo, they're comfortable within it at the small expense of pride, so they'll keep tiptoeing with this dilemma until a big external change or shock takes place. |
Re: inside joke part.....
So in all the conversations over the years I've had with Korean men that served, thinking that the ROK could most likely hold off the NORKS (conventional only) for a good while without any help from the Americans... Was I deluded, or just didn't understand what they really meant?
Sometimes they'd mention air power, and that the south could beat them easily. I'm confused. Are the Norks that good? |
What you've heard is more or less in line with the scenario of OPLAN 5027, a total war between the North and the South. In it, the South's front line divisions take the first blow as cannon-fodders and loose 50-80% of combat capability in the early days of the conflict. The time they buy is used in mobilizing reservists and reconstituting those front-line units, so that they can hold off the initial blitzkrieg of the NK. And the scenario goes, about one-month into the war, reinforcements from the U.S. mainland start arriving in the southern ports of the peninsula, start pushing north, and finish off the NK regime in Pyongyang at about 2 months in.
Korean forces have been exercising based on the numerous variations of this doctrine year in and year out, for the lack of other ways to predict and prepare for the future. Thus it's not surprising that many Koreans took in the basis of this reasonably conservative concept.
But seriously, it is rather unlikely that a country twice the population and tens of times bigger in economy cannot take down an impoverished neighbor who may be good for only the first strike and very, very short blitzkrieg. Furthermore, the setting of the war game scenario itself, that of a conventional total war, has become more and more questionable in reality.
So, as for the inside joke, you can understand it as an average Korean's frustration with all the incompetence, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness that one witnesses over the course of his service in the Korean military, rather than he'd actually believe that 'NK is that good.' For all we know, NK forces might be nothing more than the most successfully camouflaged house of cards that will collapse within hours or days under a real test. |
OPLAN 5027 is not in favor the way it once was these days. My sources say that South Korea has switched to more counter-attacking or even offensive doctrine. In the case of counter-attacking, you'd put up just enough resistance to force the North Korean units to require resupply and become slightly disorganized and then decisively counter-attack. In the case of the offensive strategy, the idea is that a spoiling attack against a North Korean buildup would prevent most of the problems with OPLAN 5027. S. Korea would gain the element of surprise, be able to select the battlefield of its choosing, and push the front line as far away as possible from S. Korean civilian centers. Look at the logistic and resupply doctrines being researched, proposed, and implemented and you can see this change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yfb
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
OPLAN 5027 is not in favor the way it once was these days. My sources say that South Korea has switched to more counter-attacking or even offensive doctrine. In the case of counter-attacking, you'd put up just enough resistance to force the North Korean units to require resupply and become slightly disorganized and then decisively counter-attack. In the case of the offensive strategy, the idea is that a spoiling attack against a North Korean buildup would prevent most of the problems with OPLAN 5027. S. Korea would gain the element of surprise, be able to select the battlefield of its choosing, and push the front line as far away as possible from S. Korean civilian centers. Look at the logistic and resupply doctrines being researched, proposed, and implemented and you can see this change. |
We can all rest easy now, we've heard from a combination yacht captain, a pilot, and now a military strategist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yfb wrote: |
We can all rest easy now, we've heard from a combination yacht captain, a pilot, and now a military strategist! |
Never claimed to be the first two. Please quote me where I claimed to be those.
Why do you have to lie and use personal insults to make your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
candy bar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| yfb wrote: |
We can all rest easy now, we've heard from a combination yacht captain, a pilot, and now a military strategist! |
Never claimed to be the first two. Please quote me where I claimed to be those.
Why do you have to lie and use personal insults to make your point? |
Are you a military strategist? As in, you contract your advice to NATO? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| candy bar wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| yfb wrote: |
We can all rest easy now, we've heard from a combination yacht captain, a pilot, and now a military strategist! |
Never claimed to be the first two. Please quote me where I claimed to be those.
Why do you have to lie and use personal insults to make your point? |
Are you a military strategist? As in, you contract your advice to NATO? |
He'll never give up his "contacts." No amount of torture can pry that information out of him.
Free soju and smokes might be another story, however.
As to the OP, it's called having your kimchi and eating it too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewchon
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Location: Back in Oz. Living in ISIS Aust.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't know about the cinematic merits of the latest hit Korean movie: 국재시장 (lit. international market, but it's really only a name ) but because it reminded the people of the American sacrifices during the Korean War, my guess is that the percentage of people wanting the USFK to leave would decrease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andrewchon wrote: |
| Don't know about the cinematic merits of the latest hit Korean movie: 국재시장 (lit. international market, but it's really only a name ) but because it reminded the people of the American sacrifices during the Korean War, my guess is that the percentage of people wanting the USFK to leave would decrease. |
It's certainly popular with Koreans old enough to be nostalgic.
Hopefully, their political views are not influenced much by melodrama. Even if they were, not much would actually change. For more on that, see safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| candy bar wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| yfb wrote: |
We can all rest easy now, we've heard from a combination yacht captain, a pilot, and now a military strategist! |
Never claimed to be the first two. Please quote me where I claimed to be those.
Why do you have to lie and use personal insults to make your point? |
Are you a military strategist? As in, you contract your advice to NATO? |
And not claiming to be the third.
Anyways, as I have said, I have military students. We always discuss current events and military matters. OPLAN 5027 is clearly obsolete in a time when military intelligence and surveillance limits the possibilities that a surprise attack would occur and the likelihood of internal regime collapse would necessitate being able to rapidly advance into North Korea to ensure the territorial integrity and civil stability of a soon to be unified Korean Peninsula. It's still trained and planned for, but its no longer the dominant plan.
Anyways, do people have any actual comments on this or just personal insults?
Basically I interpret these statements to be the equivalent "I have no knowledge or expertise or any way of refuting SR, but I have to disagree with him somehow, so I'll just insult him". If there was anything wrong with I actually said, people would use facts, not insults. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| candy bar wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| yfb wrote: |
We can all rest easy now, we've heard from a combination yacht captain, a pilot, and now a military strategist! |
Never claimed to be the first two. Please quote me where I claimed to be those.
Why do you have to lie and use personal insults to make your point? |
Are you a military strategist? As in, you contract your advice to NATO? |
And not claiming to be the third.
Anyways, as I have said, I have military students. We always discuss current events and military matters. OPLAN 5027 is clearly obsolete in a time when military intelligence and surveillance limits the possibilities that a surprise attack would occur and the likelihood of internal regime collapse would necessitate being able to rapidly advance into North Korea to ensure the territorial integrity and civil stability of a soon to be unified Korean Peninsula. It's still trained and planned for, but its no longer the dominant plan.
Anyways, do people have any actual comments on this or just personal insults?
Basically I interpret these statements to be the equivalent "I have no knowledge or expertise or any way of refuting SR, but I have to disagree with him somehow, so I'll just insult him". If there was anything wrong with I actually said, people would use facts, not insults. |
It seems like you are talking about two different things. OPLAN 5027 is, as best as I can tell, the plan if North Korea launches an out and out, last ditch, invasion. Under the Park administration there have been claims that they will use other strategies to respond to North Korean provocations (which are much different than an invasion) but this has yet to be tested or proven. If anything the U.S. would try to restrain the ROK in the event of a provocation, as has been the case pretty much throughout the entire alliance. As to it being the dominant plan or not, the people who I have talked to consider it to be, but this may or may not be true as I have mainly talked to American officials and academics about it and not Korean military personnel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In light of the recent attack on the US ambassador this topic has come up again. The man who committed the attack was obviously not representative of any sizeable proportion of SK society. While many might not be crazy about US forces in their country they are not pro-Pyongyang like this loon is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
I'd say the vast majority of the +60 crowd want US troops to stay. They've seen what the Norks can do, and it's savage, and would take the imperfect SK capitalist system over NK's any day of the week.
As for those under 40-ish, well most have been constantly taught be very liberal left-wing teachers that everything that happened in the past 60 years doesn't matter if they aren't happy. Do they want US troops go? Not sure if it's a majority, but I'd say a lot do. |
A lot of young westerners are leftish too, then they get older and reality sets in.
As for the Korean war, the 80 year old Koreans who speak English love us to death. If I come across an 80 something Korean man who speaks English, they really want to be my best friend and keep thanking us for helping them out. I did have some family who fought in the Korean war under UN command. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paddycakes
Joined: 05 May 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stan Rogers wrote: |
| To be fair nobody wants a foreign army being in their country. |
tell that to "Jennifer" who likes to spend her weekends in Itaewon chasing Hot GIs... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
