sound military strategy, withdraw us troops from the korean

[rainstorm]

dmz. while i dont think nkorea will invade, we should withdraw our troops
from the border. it would be idiotic to allow our 40,000 men to be overwhelmed in the 1st hours of an invasion. pull them back so they can be available for counterstrikes.

[mf_dolphin]

The idea of keeping the troops there is to prevent an attack to begin with. 37,000 troops are hardly a counter-attack force against a 1 million man army. Maybe you need to study a little military strategy. The US forces in North Korea are there to provide an automatic escalation of any conflict that North Korea might start. An incursion that involves US troops gives the US a built in reason to respond in force.

[rainstorm]

The idea of keeping the troops there is to prevent an attack to begin with. 37,000 troops are hardly a counter-attack force against a 1 million man army. Maybe you need to study a little military strategy. The US forces in North Korea are there to provide an automatic escalation of any conflict that North Korea might start. An incursion that involves US troops gives the US a built in reason to respond in force.

we also wanted to pull our forces back from the border with east germany during the cold war, as our military planners realized it was idiotic to place our forces right at the front, but politics would not allow it. as far as only having 37,000 troops that would be more than enough for a successful counter strike. the fact is as soon as the nkorean forces moved we could drop a few of the new and imprved "daisy cutters " on them and kill thousands in seconds. that is why there wont be an invasion. but if there was, we should pull back beforehand. ever hear of poland, 1939? they concentrated their forces next to the german border and were decimated. ever hear of france 1940? they moved up right to the border and were cut off by a brilliant german counterstroke. ever hear of russia, 1941? their army was crushed in a week. only the vast distances of russia allowed them to regroup. since the advent of mechanized armored divisions, it is now death for an army to concentrate its forces in forward areas. check out the german army in 1944 in france. they constantly were making stands at the front, on hitlers insistence, and they were constantkly being surrounded. had they fallen back after normandy they would have been much more formidable at the battle of the bulge.

[mf_dolphin]

Well a couple of things.

1. 37,000 is not an effective counter force pure and simple. With over 500,000 front line North Korean's on the move they would be slaughtered without a domination of the air. North Korea's Air Force wouldn't last for months but they have a considerable amount of aircraft to be dealth with. Even with total air superiority you don;t launch an attack with 37,000 troops. Saddam's army is in a lot worse shape and we have over 200,000 there to take care of business.

2. The new and improved "Daisy Cutter" is dropped from a C-130 or C-17. Not an aircraft that you send in contested air space.

3. Polish calvary against the German army. Not hardly a fair comparison to todays situation.

4. Russia 1941 - Russia had signed a nn-agression pact with Hitler and hardly expected an attack. Where's the parallel there. Russia was caught with their pants down. Only the vast territory, Russian winter, and American Lend-Lease kept them from falling. But again no parallel to the Korean situation.

5. Germany and D-day - The first and biggest mistake they made was in not having their armoured units within reach of the beaches. The second was that when the German field commanders requested that the armour be moved up Hitler was asleep and couldn't be bother. Another case of a politician interferring in a war! Vietnam parallel maybe but not North Korea. Germany's problem even during the Ballte of the Bulge wasn't the number of available forces. The two things that killed that offensive were lack of air cover and lack of gasoline. The Romanian oil fields on which they were dependent were destroyed or had severly crippled production capacity and the German Luftwaffe had been decimated. As soon as the cloudy condition cleared their attack was doomed.

Again, the point of the US troops at the DMZ is to act as a trip wire to bring the full force of the US into a conflict immediately. That is the one and only thing that has kept North Korea out of the south and the reason why they should stay right where they are!

[Derek Ortt]

In 1994, one of the reaosns why Clinton did not resume hostilities in Korea was because within minutes of the war, the 37K American forces would have been decimated by artillery from NK. Now, I do not support a complete withdrawl, but a repositioning of our troops further to the south, out of range of most of the artillery. That was, if war ever does break out again, the Americans will not be destroyed before the re-enforcements can come in

[rainstorm]

In 1994, one of the reaosns why Clinton did not resume hostilities in Korea was because within minutes of the war, the 37K American forces would have been decimated by artillery from NK. Now, I do not support a complete withdrawl, but a repositioning of our troops further to the south, out of range of most of the artillery. That was, if war ever does break out again, the Americans will not be destroyed before the re-enforcements can come in

political reasons

[mf_dolphin]

Clinton was a wimp and an embarresment to the nation.

In the event of an attack, it would be weeks before a significant reinforcing force could arrive. Air power would be the only thing that would slow any advance at all and that would be a hotly contested battle at least at the beginning..

[Derek Ortt]

Clinton was a wimp and an embarresment to the nation

Agree 100%

[rainstorm]

Clinton was a wimp and an embarresment to the nation

Agree 100%

yep