What are the arguments for and against US forces in Korea?

[Q Classic]

boy u can't let things die. the point was to start an arms race. china has nukes and north korea is close. no1 else does. so basically the two countries we hate have em. and every country we don't mind(taiwan, japan, south korea). we've told to not get them.

filibuster. and that usage isn't quite correct.

Qcubed-They are not already? And why is it our responsibility to prevent it?

in response to lonewolf, and to explain things to yavoon even further:
in a situation where there is already a present arms race, and one side escalates it, you don't throw gasoline on the fire.
as for preventing another regional hegemon: it's not our liberal responsibility to prevent it. it's our realist duty to. if we allow another regional hegemon, be it china, india, russia, or, hell, australia, we will be allowing another nation to post a grave national security threat. it is best to try and quash any potential national threat before it becomes one.

I actually have never been very convinced by mearshimer (call me more of a Wendt type),

wendt was boring. booooo-ring. mearsheimer at least uses facial expressions.

You say look at China's actions: exactly, which actions? China is a diplomatic midget for most of the world, they can;t figure out how to handle NK, they are trying to play all sides in South Asia, thier policy in Central asia is weak, they haven't made much noise about the South China sea recently (in various years), so I do fail to see any master plan, and the status of China's leadership at this point also makes the idea of some grand plan sort of ridiculous: the Chinese changed economic policy 180% just 30 years ago, and yet some great master plan was in place? At a minimum, what they seek is never to be humilitaed again: that does not count as a master plan, not in such a vague form.

if you choose to see it as not a master plan, that's fine. it appears to me to be a trend, a 'plan' in the most vague nature.

And allowing the NK's to take over SK is NOT the same as conceding Chinese dominanace in the region. As Gepap (God, I never thought I would praise Gepap) points out so well, the Chinese do not even control the NK's, let alone anyone else

allowing nk to take over sk is not giving chinese dominance in korea. i never said that china controlled nkorea.
conceeding chinese dominance in the region would allow them to become regional hegemon. from the korean side of things, i don't mind so much: we'd be bringing back the center of gravity from the west to east. it's my american side which takes issue with it.

just what the Hey do we care about SK anymore, anyway?

you might not. but it happens to be the 12th largest economy in the world. that, and it holds quite a few high tech companies within its borders. not to mention that it has a good deal of american military hardware that it produces under license... or would you like to see certain less-than-friendly nations able to manufacture fly-by-wire jet fighters...? face it, skorea is integrated tightly enough to the western world that its loss would be quite problematic, if not devastating, to the western economies and security.

The definition of hegemony is the control or dominating influence of one country over a group of other countries.

The definition of a client state is a country that depends on another power militarily, economically, politicall.

Therefore, a country that is under hegemonic control is a client state.

would you consider canada, britain, germany, spain, and france as client states of the us? '
america happens to be the regional hegemon of the western world (hegemon in this case is any nation which is capable of defeating any nation or any few nations in combat by a relatively nice margin, holding a decisive economic and miltary advantage); it seems to be quite able to project enough power to defeat most nations.
by that definition, china becoming regional hegemon would not mean that it controls japan or korea: merely be so much more powerful that the other two nations would be unable to successfuly defeat it in combat.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
america happens to be the regional hegemon of the western world

You expanding the term too far if we're still following Mearsheimer's definition.

[Q Classic]

You expanding the term too far if we're still following Mearsheimer's definition.

yes, i realize that regional, in this case, would refer only to the americas.
however, i believe that we have proven that the stopping power of water is greatly mitigated if there is a decisive enough technological advantage.

[Panag]

U.S. STRYKER BRIGADE TO HOLD FIRST OVERSEAS TRAINING IN KOREA
US Forces Korea Press Release

Release Date: 7/28/2003

Seoul, July 28 (Yonhap) - The U.S. Army's first Stryker brigade, a mobile force specializing in rapid combat-ready deployment, will fly to South Korea next month for its first overseas training, the U.S. 8th Army said Monday.

"A U.S. Army Stryker platoon from the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division will arrive from Fort Lewis, Washington, for their first training exercise in the Republic of Korea," the U.S. 8th Army said in a press release.

The Stryker platoon is to arrive at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, on Aug. 1 aboard a C-17 aircraft.

The brigade was set up last month around medium-armored Stryker attack vehicles. Five other brigade teams are being established in such U.S. states as Hawaii and Washington.

"The training exercise will afford soldiers and leaders of the Stryker platoon the opportunity to conduct realistic training and familiarize themselves with terrain and conditions on the Korean peninsula," the press release said.

The Stryker platoon is scheduled to return home after completing ten days of training exercises at a shooting range in Pocheon, Gyeonggi Province.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You expanding the term too far if we're still following Mearsheimer's definition.

What's Mearsheimer's definition?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
would you consider canada, britain, germany, spain, and france as client states of the us? '
america happens to be the regional hegemon of the western world (hegemon in this case is any nation which is capable of defeating any nation or any few nations in combat by a relatively nice margin, holding a decisive economic and miltary advantage); it seems to be quite able to project enough power to defeat most nations.
by that definition, china becoming regional hegemon would not mean that it controls japan or korea: merely be so much more powerful that the other two nations would be unable to successfuly defeat it in combat.

You've got two definitions for hegemony.

In your United States example, you define a hegonmy as a nation capable of defeating of other nations.

In your China example, you define a hegemony as a nation capable of withstanding an attack by another nation.

Even if we take your first definition (hegemony = the military might to defeat another nation) than the UK and France are not client states. Both are nuclear powers. Any attack on them risks MAD. Therefore no country will attempt a direct attack.

Furthermore, it would not be in the self-interest of the UK or France to allow the US to control either state, or any other European state.

As for Canada, we are somewhat of a client state. Our foreign policy is always limited by the influence exerted by the US government and the US economy. As a proud Canadian, I would prefer complete freedom, but as a realist, I must acknowledge these constraints.

Your China example is flawed by the assumption that South Korea and Japan are not capable of defending themselves. You assume that if the US pulls out of East Asia, then Sk and Japan do nothing. It is more likely that in the face of a potential Chinese threat, these countries, and others would form a defensive alliance capable of stopping China. The danger is that this alliance would pose a threat to China so China would build alliances and step up its military. Sk and Japan would respond, probably by building nukes, and the result is a massive arms race that would threaten global security.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

boy u can't let things die. the point was to start an arms race. china has nukes and north korea is close. no1 else does. so basically the two countries we hate have em. and every country we don't mind(taiwan, japan, south korea). we've told to not get them.

filibuster. and that usage isn't quite correct.

Qcubed-They are not already? And why is it our responsibility to prevent it?

in response to lonewolf, and to explain things to yavoon even further:
in a situation where there is already a present arms race, and one side escalates it, you don't throw gasoline on the fire.
as for preventing another regional hegemon: it's not our liberal responsibility to prevent it. it's our realist duty to. if we allow another regional hegemon, be it china, india, russia, or, hell, australia, we will be allowing another nation to post a grave national security threat. it is best to try and quash any potential national threat before it becomes one.

I actually have never been very convinced by mearshimer (call me more of a Wendt type),

wendt was boring. booooo-ring. mearsheimer at least uses facial expressions.

You say look at China's actions: exactly, which actions? China is a diplomatic midget for most of the world, they can;t figure out how to handle NK, they are trying to play all sides in South Asia, thier policy in Central asia is weak, they haven't made much noise about the South China sea recently (in various years), so I do fail to see any master plan, and the status of China's leadership at this point also makes the idea of some grand plan sort of ridiculous: the Chinese changed economic policy 180% just 30 years ago, and yet some great master plan was in place? At a minimum, what they seek is never to be humilitaed again: that does not count as a master plan, not in such a vague form.

if you choose to see it as not a master plan, that's fine. it appears to me to be a trend, a 'plan' in the most vague nature.

to try and explain this to u w/o incurring 18 pages of random response. Asia is an extraordinarily unstable region being held in place by a superpower 3000 miles away.

u have china, the juggernaut of the region w/ aggressive designs on the future. has the largest conventional army, growing in sohpistication every minute. Also posesses at present the only nuclear arsenal. this is counterbalanced by america, 3000 miles away, who while shares economic and idealogical concerns has no visceral stake in the matter.

now lets look at one overlooked aspect of america. Isolationism. We entered neither WWI or WWII on time. we recoiled at the very thought of our people dying, saying that "we had our own problems." now for the last 50 years we've been the unmatched economic juggernaut. But our future is uncertain, our baby boomers are set to retire, social security, a booming debt. If we develop sufficient problems of our own, isolationism lies only beneath the surface. it is as much an american ideal as individualism.

How do we grant stability back to a region hopelessly instable and held in place artificially? We can't ask south korea/taiwan/japan to keep up in a conventional arms race w/ china. they will lose. and losing will cost them more than pride. We let them develop a nuclear arsenal. Then they can deal w/ china and north korea. and even more importantly then THEY HAVE A REASON to deal w/ china and north korea. Now everything is deferred to the US. Sitting at a table to a nuclear treaty w/o nuclear weapons is like going to a poker game w/ no chips. they know it, they just sit by the sidelines.

but if taiwan/china/south korea/japan all sat at a table to discuss nuclear proliferation in the region w/ nuclear arsenals. then they'd all be sitting across w/ both a gun and a target(at present china has the only gun, everyone else just has targets). This will lend immeasurable amounts of stability to the region that does not have to be artificially enforced on the hope that america will never revert, never fail or never diminish.

and finally if I was taiwanese, japanese, or south korean. I would all but demand nukes. and they would have a point. large stable democracies have a right to defend themselves.

[Ned]

Rather than talking and grand terms about China's long-term strategic plans and inherent Asian hegemony, what you guys think China would do if there was

1) a pro-democracy coup in North Korea; or

2) there was a coup in North Korea and the new government announced its intentions to immediately re-unite with South Korea?

[Zero]

Just forget them gooks. One of the fobby korean pissed me off today by talking trash in front of (well actually he was sitting behind me) me in korean! **** him, I may not look like I know korean but I know enough to tell he's talking ****.

(As you can see im not in a mood to argue for Korea.. rather agst)

[Ned]

yavoon,

I agree with your post about like to make a few observations. The instability in Asia is not caused by China, per se, but by undemocratic, Communist régimes in power in China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Burma and Cambodia. These régimes cannot long peacefully coexist side-by-side with democratic, capitalist régimes. They will either themselves become democratic and capitalist, or they will threaten the very existence of neighboring democratic régimes. This is why nations surrounding this communist island, save for India, are protected by United States. As you said, it is the United States that bring some measure of stability to Asia.

What is going on the Korean peninsula is merely one example of the phenomenon of the impossibility of peaceful coexistence between communism and democracy. The long term solution to instability in Asian is the complete elimination of communism. The question is can we do this by starting with North Korea, or do we have to wait until China itself becomes democratic?

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The most interesting part about the two articles is that, while they are in many ways opposing viewpoints, both pieces accept the basic fact that China has some sort of long-term strategic plan. You're the only person I've ever talked to who seems to believe otherwise, which is why I wondered if you might not be "out of your element." It's just bewildering to me that you would continue to deny the existence of a Chinese strategic plan, when every major power on Earth has one.

How interesting!

Could you please tell me(/us) more about the long-term strategic plan(s) of

• the Assyrians in the eighth century BC
• the Persians in the sixth century BC
• the Macedonians in the fourth century BC
• the Romans in the third and second centuries BC
• the Germanic peoples in the fifth century AD
• the Arabs in the seventh century AD
• the Mongols in the thirteenth century
• the Ottoman Turks in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
• the Portuguese in the fifteenth century
• Spain in the sixteenth century
• France in the seventeenth century
• the British Empire in the eighteenth century
• the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century
• the USA between ~1850 and ~1950

I would like to add some words of Bismarck, who was a remarkably able statesman and diplomat:
...these powers are travelling on 'the stream of Time', which they can 'neither create nor direct', but upon which they can 'steer with more or less skill and experience'.

[Ned]

On the Romans in the third and second centuries BC, yes. The Romans actively involved themselves in the affairs of their neighbors, formed alliances, conquered enemies and extended their influence. The short had term for this policy is known as

Divide and Conquer.

[Ned]

I personally think that China strategic goals are primarily defensive in that it desires to maintain régimes like itself on its borders and would like to reacquire Taiwan. With respect to its western provinces, it needs to defeat Islamic independence movements. For this reason is allied itself on the side of the global war against terrorism.

With respect the United States, I believe that China seeks peaceful co-existence primarily by keeping the United States away from its borders. This is why I have a fundamental question as to what China would do if war breaks out between United States and North Korea, or if there was a pro-democracy coup in North Korea. Would the Chinese intervene once again as they did in 1950?

[Zero]

my attempts to threadjack have failed I guess... bummer..

But this did happen and Im still mad!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zero
my attempts to threadjack have failed I guess... bummer..

But this did happen and Im still mad!

Zero, in which country did this slander occur?