By This shouldn’t come as any huge shock to anyone:
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday said American ground forces may be unable to arrive in South Korea in time for an emergency in North Korea. Gates was speaking at the House Armed Services Committee when asked when U.S. ground forces could be fully ready for another battle in case of an emergency in North Korea following the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and deployment of forces to Afghanistan.
Gates told the committee that under present circumstances, U.S. ground troops would not be able to arrive in South Korea on the timeline required by the Korea-U.S. contingency plan. “It’s just that they wouldn’t get there as quickly because of the commitments that we have in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Gates said. “That’s not to say they wouldn’t get there.” He added that the U.S. would instead be dependent on the Navy and Air Force before ground troops arrive. [Chosun Ilbo]
This is actually a good thing because as I have been saying for years, the ROK Army is strong enough to defend the peninsula itself with the assistance of US Naval and Air Force assets. Plus IMO the US shouldn’t be committing hundreds of thousands of soldiers to occupy North Korea for a variety of reasons I have listed before.
11:19 am on February 7th, 2010 1
Of more importance would be the arrival of the US air force. South Korea can hold its own on the ground and perhaps carry on with a follow on offensive by itself. The rapid arrival of US Air Forces in addition to the South Korean Air Forces would be devastating to any North Korean attack, both to the ground forces and the leadership.
12:53 am on February 8th, 2010 2
"South Korea can hold its own on the ground and perhaps carry on with a follow on offensive by itself. The rapid arrival of US Air Forces in addition to the South Korean Air Forces would be devastating to any North Korean attack, both to the ground forces and the leadership."
In all likelihood, South Korea would rely on its missiles and artillery to take out most North Korean military installations.
1:28 am on February 8th, 2010 3
It all depends on the Chinese.
4:10 am on February 8th, 2010 4
/and the depth of DPRK SF infiltration prior to actual engagement. Not to mention how heavy the damage to Seoul during the initial artillery assault.
How much of Seoul would be left after 24 hours? DPRK will fire first. If they move fast and strike first, it could be over shortly after it started.
11:04 am on February 8th, 2010 5
“It’s just that they wouldn’t get there as quickly because of the commitments that we have in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Gates said.
—
We like to think they would arrive, but just on "Seoul Time". I think this is a concept South Koreans should be comfortable with.
11:33 am on February 8th, 2010 6
Any artillory attack on Seoul who be stopped fairly soon as the only artillory that would be able to hit Seoul and their locations are well known. The numbers are lower than you might think. (I have read about, and seen on a map, each of the locations, and they have the larger 130-170mm guns). I would also suspect each of those sites is already targeted from units much closer to the DMZ. (easy to do). Massive counter artillory would hamper any attempt to move the guns out of their mountain caves, until spec ops could destroy them in place.
North Korea could move fast with some small advance units, however, their larger divisions (the bulk of any strike) will be long targeted before they get out of the starting gate. Any large movement of troops would be noticed well in advance.
11:44 am on February 8th, 2010 7
I don't believe the Chinese would enter the war as long as US ground troops did not enter North Korea. The Chinese would lose their largest trading partner for a defunct country. Both the US and China would work to keep any upset of the status quo.
The Chinese would rather have South Korea take over the rebuilding of the North (and all the incombent problems) than have it become a Chinese dependency.
11:45 am on February 8th, 2010 8
A single 240mm Rocket or 170mm HE shell will turn a Seoul High Rise apartment into an inferno, and there will be thousands quickly overwelming firefighters, police and emergency responders. Feeding into it will be the muli-car pileups clogging every street as people attempt to flee the city under fire. Throw in a few Scuds just to make it fun and you have the start of a disaster the scope of which will make Hati look like a picnic on the beach. It doesn't take a lot of artillery firing for very long to achieve those results on a modern high density city.
This is why the USFK "Big Stick" isn't moving anytime soon out of Korea.
11:58 am on February 8th, 2010 9
I understand the point you are making. My comment is that it would not be the 'end all' and 'destruction' of Seoul as many believe.
Any unforseen artillory attack on Seoul would be disasterous. However it would be countered quickly and retribution would be the order of the day. I would suspect PyongYang would not do anyway nearly as well.
The South Koreans and their military are more than capable of dealing with these issues. The US just adds the 'pile on factor'.
2:22 pm on February 8th, 2010 10
3:03 pm on February 8th, 2010 11
How much destruction and death do your require to call an artillery attack on Seoul a success? They don't have to level the place.
DPRK already knows their large units will not have the time to enter the fight, other than as a diversion.
Time is the factor, not strength. What would their objective be? The blue house? Why? What other objectives would warrent an attack?
I rule out large ground attacks and counters. Not enought time. Any action that would be close to a success for taking Seoul would be well underway by the time the first artillery rounds hit in Seoul.
I was so amused at my CO while at Stanley in 02. He thought they would attack the camp. Talked about it often. How we would have to defend the gate. Why would they waste time with Stanley. It is likely targeted and would be little more than a hole in the hill because of the air assets after the first series.
I wonder how many series they could fire before the ROKs got their guns manned.
Surprize, timing, infiltration. Could work. If your not concerned about your casualties or collateral damage.
Is the DPRK concerned about those things?
Once upon a time it was unthinkable that plane attacks on ships was a concern.
Once upon a time it was unthinkable that an attack on america by Japan was possible.
I do not think the DPRK will ever attack. But if they did, and planed it well, I just wonder what the objective would be.
3:05 pm on February 8th, 2010 12
So true!
7:00 pm on February 8th, 2010 13
Your looking at this from the wrong starting point. The engagement doesn't start with artillary opening up, it would start hours if not days ahead of time when we noticed any large movment of troops or preparation of defense's on the NK side. USFK CDR gets briefed daily of the status of NK, and these are not powerpoint charts their actual pictures taken of NK and where everything is. This gets done daily. The NK sites with artillary that are within striking distance are pre-targeted. They would get a few rounds off at most before being neutralized. And remember these are not modern era artillary, they are old and require manual aiming / firing. Basically not accurate and good for area of effect damage only.
Seoul is huge, it would take some damage and there certainly would be casulaities but it wouldn't be anything near "gloom and destruction". And skyscrapers are designed to take an pretty impressive amount of force before collapsing inward on themselves. After fifteen or so floors the wind velocity and gravitational forces combined are intense. It would take more then one or two rounds to cause immediate structural failure.
Now onto the meat of the article. This is mostly just fancy journalism as anyone involved in the military (in Korea) these past few years know's that the ROK's are responsible for defending themselves with what they have now. The US is providing logistic, communications, intel, air and sea control, but we can't do much for the ground. We simply don't have the troops available to engage in a ground compaign. What we do have will be committed to defense of our own assets. The ROK has an Army size of about 700,000 soldiers, not including their airforce (mostly KF-16's). They are better armed, better trained and better supported then their NK counterparts. They need only play defensive until the USS George Washington CBG gets in the theatre, then its a very one sided war.
This is wargamed constantly by USFK, and I'm not talking about the half dozen or so exercise's held every year.
11:54 pm on February 8th, 2010 14
That's interesting. I thought one of the reason of keeping futenma base in Japan was to make it quicker to get ground troops into combat zones within Asia.
If they are saying there aren't any troops to get there, why do they still maintain the base at Futenama . Just give it back to the town and move back to the US?
3:38 am on February 9th, 2010 15
I agree
9:32 am on February 9th, 2010 16
In addition to the 700,000 active troops, South Korea also has a million or 2 (?) or reserves to add to the active army. And these reserves aren't like the National Guard but ones who already completed a tour of duty in the regular armed forces. They may be a little older/slower/fatter, but they are experienced soldiers.
I alway chuckle when I'm reading S Korean army soldiers recounting their experience online. Often, they talk about some difficulties with some equipment or procedure in training, than a 'reserve' (on a scheduled training), steps forward and fixes the nagging problem. Experience is irreplaceable.
N Korea would be STUPID (well already stupid so STUPIDER) to use all their artillery pieces on Seoul. What about the rest of military installations? Granted even one artillery barrage on Seoul would be devastating but it's not the end of the world.
I also read somewhere that S Korean artillery pieces located near the DMZ are already loaded (possibly aimed already) and manned 24/7.