It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Invasion: South Korea

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:58 PM
This is a question and a hypothetical scenario that is supposed to produce speculation.

From what I understand, the US has around 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea. However, 12,500 are supposed to be re-assigned to Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year or so. Most discussions about North Korea that I've read so far have been about it as a nuclear threat.

Let's suppose that N. Korea invaded S. Korea using conventional methods; i.e. infantry, tanks, artillery, and aircraft. There is little doubt that they would easily overwhelm the US forces stationed there. Lets remember that China has helped N. Korea in the past and there is a high probability of them helping again.

Considering the majority of US forces are committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, how would we retailiate? A nuclear retaliation has a probability of sparking a nuclear war between the US and N. Korea, and perhaps China too.

Would we mount a conventional counter attack against N. Korea, in doing so reducing Iraq to a skeleton crew so to speak?

How do you guys think the US, or UN, or the world for that matter would respond? What are the options?

Hope this sparks a serious discussion about what the US' Strategic location is in regards to serious and possibly overwhelming threats.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Galvatron]

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:09 PM
Just so you understand, South Korea can take care of itself, with our air power and their troops, a 1950 will not happen.

China - wouldnt me.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:16 PM
PRC is more scared NK would do something stupid and FU everything....And so far I dont think the NK regime has done anything stupid....for a hardline regime in a poor country.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by craigandrew]

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:33 PM

Bush-butt-kissers need not apply. We want a serious discussion, not nation mud-slinging.

I agree with you, craigandrew. China has too much to lose.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:38 PM
While I would not rule out NK doing ANYTHING after all they have a god leading them

I still believe that we will trade Tiawan for NK, in other words we wont interfere in china taking Tiawan and they wont interfere in us taking NK.

The major powers will NOT fight each other because of the harm both sides could inflict on the other, which would leave BOTH countries open for invasion from whoever.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:42 PM
I rarely post because I don't have the best knowledge of the topics on ATS. In this case I havesome very important information. I was in the US Army for 6 years, and still have several buddies that I am still in contact with. 2 of them were with me in the 1st Gulf War, and I asked them where all the combat divisions were for the Iraq war. Their answer was that the 1st Cav division was not being deployed in case North Korea did attack South Korea.

The trrops in South Korea are just a speed bump to hold the NK at bay while a major division or 2 is deployed to the region. We would not have to reduce the Iraq forces to a skeleton crew in order to deply to Korea. It only appears that we do not have the troops.

Think of it this way. One division is gearing up to be deployed, with a 2nd division is deployed, while a 3rd division is returning from deployment. If we have 8 active divisions, and assume that there are 2 divisions deployed to Iraq with 1 gearing up and one gearing down. Then where are the other 4 divisions? They are being held back in case they are needed.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:12 PM
I understand that we used to have our troops close deployed to the border of N.Korea. I read somewhere that if NK fired and launched every rocket and artillery piece they had in an opening invasion salvo, the entire US presence would be eradicated in six minutes. Sense then, we have moved forces farther from the border, and some to Iraq. I doubt we would use much land power in a war with N.Korea, our carrier groups and precision bombings backed by the brits would be more than enough.

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 06:06 PM
Having spent my time in Korea, I have trained with the ROKs. The ROK army is one that is trained and is training at all times to repell an invasion. If NK crosses the DMZ, the ROK will take alot of them out. The ROKs are not a second class army they were 60 years ago.

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 07:19 PM
The key difference would be that China would not help the NK against the US this time. China knows that we are too powerful, they know a war would be a situation were nobody wins. That and China and the US have a symbiotic economic realationship. Besides in the 50's we didn't have stealth, but now we do. NK might gain a short lived advantage if they made a suprise blitz, but the US/SK counterstrike would annilate them.

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 11:46 PM
Korea is a place that is not the best to fight in. The terrain is very mountainous just about the length of the DMZ. Not the most ideal for any real mechanized warfare. A sniper or two could really raise havoc and hold entire units at bay. I sure was glad that the North did not come across while I was there, and hope and pray they never do. As I have said before the ROKs are a very highly trained army.

posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 12:12 AM
i'm not very interested in getting in between 2 members fight, but i must point this out. sweatmonicaIdo, perhps you could indulge me and explain how what edsinger said is mud-slinging? how does it not give to a serious discussion? it sounded to me a perfectly fine statement, free of any american political substance. furthermore, craigandrew and edsinger said essentially the same thing (that china wouldn't get involved if NK tries to invade) but you feel it necessary to ridicule edsinger while agreeing with craigandrew. honestly, do you just not like edsinger because of his political views posted on other topics? because there is sure as hell nothing wrong with what he said on this topic.

new topics


log in