690,000 US servicemen to land in Korea in case of war: Seoul

690,000 US servicemen to land in Korea in case of war: Seoul

SEOUL (AFP) Feb 04, 2005

The United States will deploy some 690,000 military personnel to help defend South Korea in case of an outbreak of war, South Korea's Defense Ministry said in a White Paper released Friday.

The new White Paper, the first in four years, tried to sidestep a political minefield by avoiding naming the enemy US forces might have to fight against.

North Korea is no longer South Korea's "main enemy," a phrase that angered the Stalinist state when it was included in the last White Paper in 2000 and has been left out of this one.

...

The 2004 Defence White Paper said more than 690,000 servicemen in augmentation forces would be brought in to the Korean peninsula in case of an all-out war, including the army, navy, air force, and marine corps units.
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050204070048.ntjfvqdy.html

We're planing on deploying troops we don't have.

for there is NO oil underneath the ground in this area. Helliburton, KBR etc.wouldn't have much to gain by a war in that area.

.....wonder where they're gonna find that many troops....oh yeah...GANGS! :eyes:

Policemen of the world R US!!!

all weekend, explaining that dying for their country would be so much better than dying for drugs.

these must be those droid armies they are building. because um, even if you imposed a draft, it would take a LONG time to get that many well trained troops


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

troops to send to Korea? And how many billions will that cost us.

Didn't we pull many troops OUT of S Korea in the last 6 months?

Our economy is "confident and strong", we've got "clear skies", Fallujah is "liberated", freedom is "on the march," and by withdrawing thousands of troops from South Korea we are actually building up our forces there.

They've lost several troops there, too.

or perhaps they are going to use Cylons.

of B1's (24) to Guam if I remember right. N. Korea's got 18,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul.

I've signed up to be on the draft board (and I encourage every other liberal to do it if possible) and the orders are for 100,000 inductees within the first 30 days, after the C.O. 4-F and other deferments are factored in. 100,000 in 30 days. We even have a little picture in our handbooks showing how it would work. Subsequent months would be expected to produce even higher numbers...

Of course, if a bunch of liberals are serving on draft boards and handing out college and hardship deferments, 4-F deferments and affirming conscientious objector status on everyone who asks for it, that might slow down the Shrub's killing machine a little.

As for the money, I'm sure Wolfowitz will tell us the Koreans can pay for it themselves...just like the Iraqis are now...

on the line for their fearless leader? Right.

P.S. pResident AWOL is here this morning. The streets are swarming with secret service thugs. Last night they were threatening to throw people in jail.

Let freedom reign my ass.

Who were they threatening?, what did they say? Paint me a picture of the time and place! We have to let people know who they let loose on the country!

How the HELL are they going to find over 600k EXTRA troops to send over THERE ??!?!

Kimpo airport 'll be gone withing seconds of the beginning of a conflict,
as the artillery barrage from the north will likely take out the
entire city of seoul and all its support infrastructure.

THen short range missiles will take out kwangju, pusan, ... exactly
where are they gonna land 690,000 soldiers when millions of south
koreans would be running south in mass waves of refugees... and of
course all airstrips will be primary targets from the getgo....

Likely the 690,000 will sit in okinawa, presuming NK does not nuke it
at the beginning of war, as in that case, they'll just be deployed in
san diego... i guess that's what bush means. 690,000 troops deployed
to the frontline in san diego... cardboard cutouts... meanwhile japan
and SK will fight any conflict that arises... whilst the paper army
scratches its head.

Sorry, Japan, but that old saying still rings true. The US can use *every* airstrip on the archipegalo in the event of a war with NK.

It seems to me this unsinkable aircraft carrier was defeated by very sinkable aircraft carriers. So, I would be careful about making too many assumptions (granted, the situations are very different, I am just pointing out a general cautionary principle).

Nor do they have any means to prevent the US from landing as many jets as it likes on the Japanese archipelago. The US manufacturing base is far beyond the reach of NK, unlike the factories of Japan were during WWII.

I do not see the relevance of such a comparison.

North Korea can't project conventional naval power onto the U.S., that's true. But lots of things could prevent Japan from being used as a U.S. "aircraft carrier". The Japanese themselves might not go along (the way the Turks refused to let the U.S. use Turkey as a staging ground against Iraq). Or the Chinese could get involved once again. Nobody can know. That's all I am saying.

The validity of this article needs to be confirmed.

It is coming from a third-hand source, www.spacewar.com, claiming to be quoting an AFP article. The AFP article alleges a white paper, but does not ever reference it.

Also, I tried to go to news.google.com and search for Korea. I could find no such thing.

Be careful here. You would not want conservatives to jump all over this, if it is untrue.

Can you confirm the article's authenticity by going to a primary source such as the white paper itself??

On the other hand, if this is all true, why isn't it being reported anywhere else??

http://rki.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_detail.htm?No=22697

They don't go into as much detail as to what is in the White Paper, but everything else is the same. It's supposed to be released today, February 4th, so perhaps we'll be able to get a copy soon.

Another mention from Korea:
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20050121/301100000020050121183252E6.html


Best link: Here's one from Voice of America with mentions both the white Paper, and the promise of 690,000 troops. Given that the VoA is US government controlled, I'd say this is as ironclad a confirmation as we're likely to get:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-04-voa9.cfm

From the VoA website:

South Korea's defense department has updated a key White Paper dealing with North Korea to reflect a more conciliatory attitude - while leaving no doubts that it would try to deter any possible attack.

The document, released Friday, drops 10-year-old references to North Korea as the "main enemy" of South Korea, instead describing the Communist state as a "direct military threat." The revisions to the White Paper, the first in four years, reflect South Korea's policy of seeking to engage the North peacefully.

At the same time, the document says the United States would commit 690,000 military personnel, supported by about 2,000 war planes should North Korea attack.

The paper says that commitment would require 70 percent of all U.S. Marines, half of the U.S. Air Force, and 40 percent of the U.S. Navy, plus thousands of Army troops, to defend South Korea.

(more at link)

It hasn't made the mainstream news, because they'd probably rather we didn't think about all this right now. The Bush administration tends to play down North Korea whenever possible.

though I was kinda hopin' MB was wrong on this one.

American troops led U.N. forces during the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula still technically at war.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/i_latestdetail.asp?id=26175

How well will you sleep tonight?

Technically, the cease-fire never evolved into a treaty ending the war.

including all the cooks, admin pogues, etc.


I suspect someone in Korea has been fed a line of bullshit.

Also posted in my reply above:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-04-voa9.cfm

The paper says that commitment would require 70 percent of all U.S. Marines, half of the U.S. Air Force, and 40 percent of the U.S. Navy, plus thousands of Army troops, to defend South Korea.

I believe that most of those troops are already spoken for right now, however.

in the world. I was reading this morning that the height of our troop levels in Vietnam was around 450,000. I don't think we have that many solders.

But then again we had troops in Germany, Japan, and else where that Bush* was going to move correct?

we can find troops in the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Honduras etc.

are to start promising "citizenship" to the people and families in 3rd world countries to our south if they "join up" and go fight for us. I'm convinced that this is why he talks about letting in "workers" much to the chagrin of some of the more traditional Republicans who don't want that. I think that is the idea Bush has for "Guest Workers"...outsource the jobs to the poor brown people to the South....

Google "690000 troops Korea." You will come up with several articles in the MSM that give 690,000 as the number of South Korean troops on the peninsula. Also, the US plans to cut it's troop strength in Korea by 12,500 in 2005.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/07/content_337321.htm

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-04-voa9.cfm

From the link:

At the same time, the document says the United States would commit 690,000 military personnel, supported by about 2,000 war planes should North Korea attack.

The paper says that commitment would require 70 percent of all U.S. Marines, half of the U.S. Air Force, and 40 percent of the U.S. Navy, plus thousands of Army troops, to defend South Korea.

Kim Yong-kyu, a spokesman for U.S. Forces in Korea, confirms that contingency plan, but says the troops would not arrive at once. "This reinforcement number not be deployed at one time," he said. "They have it in three stages."

The span of time for the three stages, says Mr. Kim, would depend on the nature and intensity of the conflict.

It's not. The story in VOA contradicts the story in www.spacewar.com.

See other post which is a reply to the op for more details.

I know Bush's inner circle is a bunch of neo-fascists and I know Congress (even Dems) are bending over for the neo-fascists, but...

Don't you think that Congress would need to take part in a decision to declare war against N Korea?

Most troops are moving south and 2ID probably won't be here in Korea anymore. They're planning on rotating the last brigade to Iraq next year and the brigade that's there now will go to Ft. Carson. CO. The 3rd brigade is already in the states.

and BBC usually don't post speculations or unconfirmed stories
______________________________________________________________

Updated: Friday, 4 February, 2005, 10:55 GMT

Seoul drops 'enemy' tag for North

North and South Korea are still technically at war

South Korea has dropped its reference to North Korea as its "main enemy", in the country's latest White Paper on defence.

The report said that, in the event that war broke out on the Korean peninsula, the US would sent 690,000 troops and several boats and aircraft.

"The United States has a plan to send more than 40% of its entire navy, more than half of its air force and more than 70% of its marine corps to defend South Korea," the White Paper said.

/snip/

The war ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula still technically at war. In recent months, the Americans have cut back their troop presence in South Korea.



But I agree with those that doubt the US's capability to even amass, let alone transport even half that number or much less really

- sheesh!!

- it took them months to get the 100,000 or so over to the Gulf, and they are STILL trying to dominate a wee country with no real military, and LOSING!!

just the cost of oil to maintain such a war machine could totally wreck the already floundering US economy

in my opinion anyhoo - - :shrug: - - ??

The op source says
"The United States will deploy some 690,000 military personnel to help defend South Korea in case of an outbreak of war, South Korea's Defense Ministry said in a White Paper released Friday."

This statement (as well as the whole article) implies deployment as a preventive measure.

Your posted source says
"The report said that, in the event that war broke out on the Korean peninsula, the US would sent 690,000 troops and several boats and aircraft."

This statement implies deployment as a reactive measure.

Now, additionally as I pointed out before...this is still hearsay.

We are hearing about US policy third-hand. Media sources are talking about a S Korean whitepaper which talks about US policy. The op is even worse, as it is fourth-hand. It is quoting AFP which quotes the whitepaper which is talking about US policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050204/wl_asia_afp/nkoreamilitaryskoreaus_050204073102

Daily news

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-2-2005_pg4_1

E-Mail this article to a friendPrinter Friendly Version

N Korea threatens attack on US bases

* 690,000 US troops will defend South Korea in case of war

SEOUL: North Korea will turn US military bases in the region into a “sea of fire” if war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, state media on Friday quoted an air force officer as saying.

Same for radio Australia

http://abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/s1296476.htm

if this story is for real. 690,000 troops plus the 135,000 - 150,000 stationed in Iraq plus all our other troops stationed around the globe just dosn't add up. It's not just far-fetched, its physically impossible. The last time our armed forces mobilized a deployment of that size was back when the draft was in full swing. The figure has got to be either a typo or a misunderstanding.

recycling quite a few of troops for near two years.

600,000 is an awful big number for preventive measures.

The source for the op is wrong. All the other sources cited as "confirmations" to the op show that the deployment is a reactive measure. The op source implies that it is a preventive measure.

In other words, the other sources say that troop deployment will occur after N Korea attacks. The op source implies that troop deployment will ocur before N Korea attacks.

troops out of South Korea and re-deploy them in more STRATEGIC locations (read oil and gas defense). Call me crazy....didn't I read that somewhere - SO NOW WHAT'S GOING ON? I remember reading that we had been in South Korea for 50 years. And folks think we will be pulling out of Iraq....sure

1) Reinstate the Draft (May need a jump start terror attack)

2) Train millions of soldiers for endless oil wars.

3) Doesn't matter how many die, because we will need to reduce our population because there won't be enough oil to go around.

4) Keep the wealthy living their comfortable life.

Is it any simpler than that?

The op from spacewar.com says:
"The United States will deploy some 690,000 military personnel to help defend South Korea in case of an outbreak of war, South Korea's Defense Ministry said in a White Paper released Friday."

The article is very misleading. If I said to you that I will give you $1,000,000 in case you need it, wouldn't expect the million? According to the VOA link that htuttle gave, the 690K forces will only show up, if first N. Korea attacks. That would be analogous to me giving you 1 million dollars after you hit poverty. These are two entirely separate things.

Now, there are a number of other things that are wrong here with the op claim, besides the fact that it is misleading. First, it is a second-hand quote from an AFP article. OK, so where's the AFP article? According to the LBN policies, we are supposed to post things from the source itself and not second-hand links. I went to the AFP website and could not find the article. Maybe they retracted it? Maybe they edited it to use a better translation, so that it was not as misleading? I don't know...

Even besides these problems, we are hearing about what was written in a S Korean whitepaper about US policy three times removed....i.e. fourth-hand source.

(1) Spacewar.com says that AFP says something.
(2) AFP says that S Korean whitepaper says something.
(3) S Korean whitepaper says that US policy says something.

Sure, you can point to links from other MSM sources now that the story is spreading, but more reliable, consistent, and detailed sources are needed here.

This is the reason for the posting policy to begin with, isn't it?
"5. Whenever possible, post excerpts and links from reputable mainstream news sources that are available online. Do not link to blogs, vanity sites, or blatantly biased sources, except in cases where reputable mainstream sources are not available. Please make an effort to link directly to the original source of an article, instead of linking to sites that have re-published someone else's content, or re-packaged someone else's content as their own. The moderators have the authority to decide which websites are appropriate for posting in the Latest Breaking News forum and which are not. "

Every article being cited as confirmation makes it clear that the troops will be sent AFTER N Korea attacks S Korea.

The original op says that troops will be deployed BEFORE a N Korea attack.

Therefore, this is not a confirmation. It is a contradiction.

Thanks for the joke!

Are they math deficient? Or do they think we're going to put our other war on hold and call in all our troops from around the world?

This is posturing by South Korea... If you attack us the mighty US will come to our aid!

Well, I've got news for them we aren't so mighty anymore. Besides, are dance card is already full.

hungry, poor, under-educated or ignorant children left in America's hinterlands and urbania to recruit.?

690K troops gathered from where? Not the US - the numbers just don't make sense.

Sorry if someone already asked this, I don't have time to read all the posts on this thread.