SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Pentagon confirmed Monday that major U.S. military exercises this summer in South Korea would be suspended, following President Trump's decision.
'We will be stopping the war games, which will save us a tremendous amount of money, unless and until we see the future negotiation is not going along like it should,' Trump told reporters after his meeting last Tuesday with Kim in Singapore. 'But we'll be saving a tremendous amount of money. Plus, I think it's very provocative.'
foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/18/pentagon-confirms-halt-august-war-games-with-south-korea.html
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Pentagon Confirms Halt of War Games With South Korea
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 58 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Wednesday June 20 2018, @05:23PM (3 children)
There are two types of wargames conducted in S. Korea with US involvement. They type you describe happened earlier this year. The set of wargames that were scheduled to take place next were simulated command-and-control type affair with no actual troop movements.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-southkorea-drills/keyboard-warriors-south-korea-u-s-gear-up-for-war-games-to-counter-north-korea-threat-idUSKCN1AZ04G [reuters.com]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:18PM (2 children)
That's not the same thing at all, although I'd say the implications are generally similar. There doesn't seem to be much of a downside aside from at the personal level for personnel that might have been looking forward to it, and in the context it was doubtless seen by the north as a provocation, so cancelling it should save money as well as ease tensions.
And I can only laugh at those who paint this as unseemly appeasement. North Korea is a small and poor country which has virtually nothing but it's military. A military mostly equipped with out of date weapons and dug into defensive positions, where it has held for decades. It has masses of ancient but still lethal artillery loaded and aimed and ready to go in response to any attack, one wouldn't go amiss by characterizing it as a bit paranoid in fact (though if you know the history you may sympathize,) but that is hardly an offensive posture they have been holding for half a century. The nukes were pursued right up until diplomacy started working then frozen. And realistically, even if Kim dies (or has a radical personality change or whatever) tomorrow and his successor WANTED to invade, that would be a disaster for the north. EVEN IF the US were somehow completely sidelined, they couldn't pull it off.
Does this let Kim have a little face? Sure. Does it cost us anything? No. Give diplomacy a chance.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday June 20 2018, @09:38PM (1 child)
I can't imagine what an offensive posture would be in your world.
North Korea has over 10,000 artillery pieces and many rockets in hardened batteries within striking distance of Seoul. I would call that an offensive posture.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday June 21 2018, @01:31AM
That's one of the keys right there.
You're talking about the larges part of their men and equipment, dug into a defensive positions, immobile, invested in defensive positions. Their battle plan is laid out in their deployment. Stall and retaliate. That's not a battle plan that's of any use to someone planning to start a war. That's the deployment of someone expecting to be attacked, and determined to resist.
What would an offensive posture look like? Less investment in defensive positions, more on transportation, logistics, maneuver. A lot is made of the maximum range of the weapons reaching to Seoul - and that's true - but for the most part these are shorter range weapons, and Seoul is also extremely close to the DMZ. That mass of artillery could inflict tremendous destruction on the south right there in the nearby area - including the capital and a lot of military in their targets - and it could do it with horrifying speed. OK. What next?
If they're thinking of invading, then they're screwed is what's next. All those men and machines that are so deeply dug in, those 'hardened batteries' are pretty darn useless at that point, you can't pick them up and advance with them, you can't even redeploy when the enemy strikes behind those lines either. All they can do is sit there and wait to be killed; which they would be, eventually, at the cost of billions of dollars in missiles and bombs.
If you wanted to launch an invasion (instead of repel one) you wouldn't have a single-minded obsession with fortifying a defensive line like that. You'd want vehicles. Mechanized infantry and artillery that can move forward to take ground, or move back north to cover a new threat, rather than hardened batteries that will be able to do neither with any speed.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?