Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Does the U.S. Have the Capability to Invade and Occupy North Korea?
Roman    10/5/2006 8:45:53 AM
Well... do you think the U.S. has such capability? What kind of forces would be needed to accomplish the task?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Nanheyangrouchuan       10/10/2006 4:15:53 PM
" China is already South Korea's largest trading partner, having surpassed the U.S., and trade between the two continues to grow in leaps and bounds, so South Korea has a lot to gain by kow-towing to China."

Korean pride may end up trumping business partnerships similar to Taiwan.  Besides, now that China is claiming part of northern Korea as chinese territory, SK is not so warm with China.  China also could not resist in meddling in the politics of a united Korea in an attempt to load up the national and local governments with pro-CHina officials.  China would not like having a modern asian democracy on its border.  I think there would be problems with border incursions from China as well.

Though China is indeed much nimbler with overall foreign diplomacy than the US (especially regarding this administration), China has had quite a few missteps with its neighbors.  China has never gotten over not being able to rule over Asia.  Vietnam used to be our "enemy" and now everything is warm and fuzzy.  We never had that much animosity with Korea.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       10/10/2006 8:01:29 PM

I disagree. China is already South Korea's largest trading partner, having surpassed the U.S., and trade between the two continues to grow in leaps and bounds, so South Korea has a lot to gain by kow-towing to China.

 

You are right that it is fashionable to be anti-American these days (and not just in South Korea) and I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that this 'fashion' will continue for a while, even though it may ebb and flow a bit depending on the next administration. This, however, merely supports my argument.

 

The issue of identity also plays a role. Although both countries are nationalistic, there is also a greater sense of Confucian and Asian identities that is increasingly asserting itself in the backround. It is not yet anywhere as strong as national/ethnic identity, but if you live in Asia for an extended period of time, you will notice it in the backdrop. This would work to align a united Korea more with China in the absence of an external threat. These identities are much more powerful in most cultures than the U.S. (and indeed now probably also European) notion of community of democracies.

 

I would not assume that the P.R.C. would bungle the diplomatic relationship with Korea - to the contrary, the U.S. tends to be much more prone to foreign policy missteps, particularly in areas culturally rather different from the U.S.. To me, at least, this seems to be a function of the fundamental assumption of U.S. foreign policy that promoting democracies will make the countries concerned automatically friendly and grateful to the U.S., which, of course, could not be further from the truth.

 

Note that I am actually rather sympathetic to the U.S., but most of the world does not think that way and we should try to understand the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.


You have to take note of politics that is for public consumption (ie anti-americanism) and the somewhat behind the scenes politics (South Korea unhappy with US troop draw downs in South Korea).   I think you are just noticing U.S. foreign policy misteps because we have a more global reach.  Take a closer look at Asia and I'm not sure China is doing all that well.  Their brand of captilism is quickly tightening the screws on their poorer Asian neighbors and the richer ones they don't particullarly get along well with. Oh they trade with lots of folks, but note that pre WWII Germany was France's primary trading partner and the US was Japan's.  Trade doesn't tell the whole story.
 However, the primary reason I don't beleive a united Korea would get along well with China, is that a united Korea (or at least a Korea that is far less of a mess that is currently) has from time to time been a possibility with enough leverage from China.  China certainly hasn't pushed for it.  Simply put, I don't see China risking having a democratic nation that for the last 60 years has been in the US camp and that would have a strong enough economy and military not to be inimidated by China right along their border.
 
I would have said up to the little nuclear test, this decision was all in China's hands.  Now, maybe not.
 
Quote    Reply

GreyJackal       10/10/2006 8:07:16 PM
We can invade it, but ocuppying it might be a lot harder.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/13/2006 7:16:27 AM
When it comes to Chinese missteps--just remember that Ho Chi Minh was much happier having to deal with the French for 20 years than the Chinese for a thousand.
 
A unified Korea with a southern "feel" would be happier charting its own course--they've seen the "freedom" that Hong Kong enjoys.

 
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas       10/13/2006 3:40:41 PM
The following is  an article by Robert  Kaplan which first appeared in The Atlantic Monthly

 
I found it to be informative and well argued

"http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2006/09/when_north_kore.php"

When North Korea Falls

An extremely important article about the world's most repressive Stalinist style regime. A must read. RJA

The furor over Kim Jong Il’s missile tests and nuclear brinksmanship obscures the real threat: the prospect of North Korea’s catastrophic collapse. How the regime ends could determine the balance of power in Asia for decades. The likely winner? China

by Robert D. Kaplan

The abbreviation for North Korea used by American military officers says it all: KFR, the Kim Family Regime. It is a regime whose demonization by the American media and policy makers has obscured some vital facts. North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung, was not merely a dreary Stalinist tyrant. As defectors from his country will tell you, he was also a popular anti-Japanese guerrilla leader in the mold of Enver Hoxha, the Stalinist tyrant of Albania who led his countrymen in a successful insurgency against the Nazis. Nor is his son Kim Jong Il anything like the childish psychopath parodied in the film Team America: World Police. It’s true that Kim Jong Il was once a playboy. But he has evolved into a canny operator. Andrei Lankov, a professor of history at South Korea’s Kookmin University, in Seoul, says that under different circumstances Kim might have actually become the successful Hollywood film producer that regime propaganda claims he already is.

Kim Jong Il’s succession was aided by the link that his father had established in the North Korean mind between the Kim Family Regime and the Choson Dynasty, which ruled the Korean peninsula for 500 years, starting in the late fourteenth century. Expertly tutored by his father, Kim consolidated power and manipulated the Chinese, the Americans, and the South Koreans into subsidizing him throughout the 1990s. And Kim is hardly impulsive: he has the equivalent of think tanks studying how best to respond to potential attacks from the United States and South Korea—attacks that themselves would be reactions to crises cleverly instigated by the North Korean government in Pyongyang. “The regime constitutes an extremely rational bunch of killers,” Lankov says.

Yet for all Kim’s canniness, there is evidence that he may be losing his edge. And that may be reason to worry: totalitarian regimes close to demise are apt to get panicky and do rash things. The weaker North Korea gets, the more dangerous it becomes. The question that should be of greatest concern to the U.S. military in the Pacific—and the question that will likely determine the global balance of power in Asia for generations—is, What happens when North Korea collapses?

The Nightmare After Iraq

On the Korean peninsula, the Cold War has never ended. On the somber, seaweed-toned border dividing the two Koreas, amid the cries of egrets and Manchurian cranes, I observed South Korean soldiers standing frozen in tae kwon do ready positions, their fists clenched and forearms tightened, staring into the faces of their North Korean counterparts. Each side picks its tallest, most intimidating soldiers for the task (they are still short by American standards).

In the immediate aftermath of the Korean War, the South raised a 328-foot flagpole; the North responded with a 525-foot pole, then put a flag on it whose dry weight is 595 pounds. The North built a two-story building in the Joint Security Area at Panmunjom; the South built a three-story one. The North then added another story to its building. “The land of one-upmanship,” is how one U.S. Army sergeant describes the DMZ, or demilitarized zone. The two sides once held a meeting in Panmunjom that went on for eleven hours. Because there was no formal agreement about when to take a bathroom break, neither side budged. The meeting became known as the “Battle of the Bladders.”

In other divided countries of the twentieth century—Vietnam, Germany, Yemen—the forces of unity ultimately triumphed. But history suggests that unification does not happen through a calibrated political process in which the interests of all sides are respected. Rather, it tends to happen through a cataclysm of events that, piles of white papers and war-gaming exercises notwithstandi

 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       2/19/2007 3:35:25 AM
Yes, the US has more than enough capability to invade and occupy North Korea. They are a backwards nation who can barely keep their population fed. They will be crushed with ease. Then all the North Korean women will rush to the arms of GI's to marry them so they can leave the armpit they call their homeland and head for the Land of the Big PX.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics