Kim is being a much more of public figure unlike his father. It's been recently announced that he is married (with pictures) and he recently sacked a very senior Army Chief that was very close to his father. Optimists are leaning toward the opinion that things may be warming up under the leadership of the "Respected Leader"..

If anyone is interested, a web site dealing the ROK. I believe it's run by an American expat

www.rokdrop.com

Whether or not it should be questioned might be a different issue, but it won't be.

This is very very rarely questioned. Hence the thread.

the Norks. Bring it fools!

If you've ever been there, you would not say something like that. I guessing you're a mountain climber as there are plenty of mountains there. Oh.....it's cold in the winter so dress warm.

They should begin to spend enough to defend themselves.

More and more control of the military command structure is being turned over to the South Koreans.

They do pay for the lion share of the costs to station our troops there

Of course we should be supportive of South Korea, hell, its more of a democracy than we are and besides that, since when do we bow to threats from megalomaniacs?

South Korea will be able to get help from many nations.

we are still at war with NK.

As everyone knows, the saber rattling has been going on for years, often resulting in highly publicized physical encounters. That will never end unless NK changes. Whether we go to war and support SK is kind of default answer.........yes..........we would have to fight should the north invade as we have combat troops stationed just south of the DMZ. They would be caught up in it in heartbeat.

One way to tell if tensions are really high........if you see /hear the State Dept issue alerts for dependent evacuation then you know something is up.

Should we have troops in the South.... I understand the history, but it is still a relevant question.

I personally believe we should be out of there. SK's military is awesome and they should spend the money they pay to station our troops on increasing the size of their military.

But we are still at war right?

While their presence is a deterrent to North Korea's dreams of invading South Korea, it is possibly (I am no expert) just as beneficial for both countries. There may be some strategical value to having a US presence in the area. If so, it would seem most likely that any treaty signed would include mutual aid against acts of aggression.
Of course, in this case, the aid will mostly be provided by the US. However, it would almost be impossible for the US to ignore an unprovoked attack on a country this is currently hosting US soldiers.

The north has 77,000 "tubes" (artillery pieces, rocket launchers etc) that can hit Seoul. Shooting over our bases at camps Casey, Stanley, Red Cloud and others would just force the 2nd Infantry Division to go defensive and fight. If the north invades, the US will be forced to reinforce.

The ROK is geared for a defensve war. Their main highway running from Seoul to the southern port city of Busan has at least 2 (if not more) 10,000 ft undevided sections designed to be able to land the largest cargo planes.

Oh.....and don't fuck with their army. I often say the US has troops stationed there for 2 reasons; the obvious of being a deterrent against the north and secondly, a deterrent to keep the south going north. Nationalism is strong in the ROK.

Most likely North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un's uncle, will evolve in the direction of the Chinese model.

Economic conditions in the North should improve with more trade with China.

Honestly, the best bet is to just leave that country alone until it get devoured by China.