This could be a step in the right direction:
South Korea has proposed talks to recover wartime operational control of its military from the United States, a step necessary to building a self-reliant defense posture, Chong Wa Dae said Wednesday.
During the Security Policy Initiative (SPI) meeting in Washington, D.C. last month, South Korea’s delegation suggested that the two allies begin full-scale discussions on the issue, presidential spokesman Kim Man-soo said in a briefing.
“However, we’ve yet to receive an official response to our proposal from the U.S.,” the spokesman said.
The Defense Ministry confirmed the proposal, saying the issue will be one of the main agenda items at the upcoming defense ministers’ talks between the two countries.
20 Comments
A step in the right direction? For whom? The US?
As for Korea, how wise is it to this at a time when the Korean military is not prepared to take on a sudden increase of defense burden? I would have no problems if this was a gradual goal, but to suddenly take full control of the operations? This will only mean further expediated exit of the US forces out of Korea. How can this be good for S.Korea? There’s less than 2 years left of the URI party, but before they get dumped, they’re doing their best to cause irrepairable harm to S.Korea in a rush to experiment with nationalism. And when they get out of office, it maybe too late to save the country. It’s as if the URi party is going along and making up crucial policies that will effect the future of the country based on emotion, rather than rational strategy.
The sooner the ROK expedites the moving of US forces to their new bases further south, the sooner it will be in a position to assume the burden of taking over the wartime command and control structure.
It’s been over 50 years since the end of the war, Kimbob. Long past time for the ROK to assume the entire burden of command and control of its own defense.
Kimbob,
I think sooner or later the kids need a reality check. If things go the way it is heading, the US-ROK alliance, I think, might be in a truelly unfixable situation. US may as well leave. From America’s perspective, I can’t see why this would be a bad move, we can still do the same exact things without being in Korea and at the same time, avoiding stuff like military training exercises that leads to accidents. I can see how this would be a disaster for ROK, but like I said, the kids(hanchongryun) needs to grow up sometimes. United States cannot subsidize SK defense at the same time paying political costs by becoming the boogeyman that prevents unification.
It also seems to me, that America’s presence on the Korean peninsula doesn’t seem to make any difference as far as any discussions for denuclearization or human rights or economic aid talks are concerned.
We also need to face the reality that military resources are needed elsewhere, i.e. Iraq.
But I do wonder how things might have turned out had ROK had a more conservative president and US had a liberal one.
A furter note of interest: I went looking a while back. Can’t remember where I read it now, but I think the last Chinese military forces departed the DPRK in 1958. One presumes that whatever joint command structure they had with DPRK armed forces ended at that time (?)
I wonder where in the world the US allows another country to command American forces in time of large scale war? Haven’t the NORKS been demanding the end of American command of South Korea’s military in time of war? Should the American’s agree to this, its clear it will be part of a withdrawal from the peninsula by those same American forces. Jimmy Carter was right, just alittle early.
“There?s less than 2 years left of the URI party, but before they get dumped, they?re doing their best to cause irrepairable harm to S.Korea in a rush to experiment with nationalism.”
they will all just jusmp on the bandwagon of the next new party to come along before the election and most will be re-elected anyway. I think that the next election wil be disappointing if you think there will be a significant change.
I agree with Marmot that the ROK should discuss this issue and even be given operational command. I’m sickened by conservative opinion in the Chosun arguing that this should not happen, because ROK cannot pay for it. America doesn’t need supposed allies like that.
The Korean Dimension
It’s easy these days to feel despondent about US-ROK relations. Although the Roh administration cooled with ordinary tap water rhetoric surfacing from a left-right confrontation over MacArthur’s statue at Incheon, it has returned to form with a reque…
Uh, at risk of losing my reputation I have to say that wartime command in the hands of the ROK would be a very bad and dangerous idea.
UNLESS, that is, the USFK withdraws or for some strange reason the USFK doesn’t mind being under the wartime command of ROK forces, which would of course “work” from a technical standpoint though I can’t imagine it ever happening.
I’m no military strategist, but I don’t see how two militaries can fight on the same side in the same theater and not have there be utter chaos. What are they going to do, have those “negotiations” every time there’s an operation that needs to be executed?
I often thought the demand for wartime command was a roundabout way to encourage the USFK to leave. If that’s the intention then more power to ‘em.
If I’ve missed something and someone in the know can say that it wouldn’t be a disaster to have two different commands (ROK, USFK) calling the shots if war breaks out then I’ll happily revise my interpretation.
Kimbob is right. This is another example of this Korean administration helping out KJI to eat up SK. Koreans know this and that is why they will kick this “college radicals” out in next election. Just wait and see. Rho is down to 20% approval.
And, the rest of you, “let’s pull troops out of Korea” hooligans, just wait and think. What the troops are going to do?
1) Go to Iraq? It is just police action over there. No fighting. MPs may do something, but regular soldiers will have nothing to do. More troubles if Army soldiers go there now.
2) Start a war with Iran? Too early.
3) Go to the US and play with themselves? Yeah, this is what you guys want, I know. But, then the US public will fire half of soldiers for doing nothing. Not needed. Replace expensive humans with robots and missiles.
Stay in Korea and do military exercises. In this way, the US can prepare for next war, which may break out in Asian theater. Already stay ready! Strong military, the best in the world, kept the US prosperous up to now. When the US calls troops home and cut troop strength, she will lose her voice in the world community.
Please understand, this is only a cultural misunderstanding that you Westerners suffer from. YOu need to understand that when we Koreans talk, the words doesn’t really mean what they assert. It is our time-honored custom to talk just for the sake of talking. This confuses outsiders because speech serves a different purpose in your cultures -communication. When you do talk, you mean what you say. We may talk more than anybody on the planet but we do not communicate.
Since ancient times, we have valued language and words themselves rather than for the meanings behind them. We have spent untold hours memorizing and writing Chinese characters and this is what has traditionally passed for scholastic accomplishment. In the old days, we used these rote memorization and reproduction skills in our civil service exams, which have now been replaced by college entrence exams. To this day, the things we write and say are accomplishments in themselves and there is really no need to expect that they carry any actual meaning. Please don’t hold us Koreans to your cultural expectations -it would simply be unfair to hold us responsible for anything we say.
Just remember that each culture has its own rules, and language for us serves an entirely different purpose. It serves as an internal feedback loop - our words are yet another way for us to continually get caught up in ourselves. Words are our toys and they keep us from having to look outside our circular frame of reference.
So do not try to change the rules and expect them to reflect your obsessive demand for logic, coherence and honesty.
Whether you Americans stay here or not is immaterial. No matter who rules this peninsula, we will still have the beautiful Korean language to bask in. Inventing new words without having to understand them and engaging in lengthy statements without having to mean them should keep us busy for decades to come.
After all the other US military members have left, the last one still on the ground should be the one to turn over wartime command to the ROK military. And if there is a war in South Korea, the US should honor its alliance commitment by promptly sending, maybe a year or so after the beginning of the conflict, a force of 3,000 medics and engineers to guard the summit of Mount Halla on Jeju Island.
I agree with Marmot that the ROK should discuss this issue and even be given operational command. I?m sickened by conservative opinion in the Chosun arguing that this should not happen, because ROK cannot pay for it. America doesn?t need supposed allies like that.
Getting full operational command will mean USFK out of Korea. That’s the argument.
The US will never or should submit their military to Korean command. Nor is it militarily feasible to have two different commands for two different armies in Korea. Even the Britisish, the French, and the Canadians were under one command - under the US general Eisenhower, when they landed in Normandy in 1944. As long as the USFK stays in Korea, it’s a dumb ideal to have a separate full Korean command. It brings not only absolutely no benefits other than keeping patriotic pride, it also is really saying to the US, “it was nice knowing you, we appreciate what you did, now get lost cause we don’t need you anymore and we’re going to be the new boss around here”. DUMB DUMB DUMB!
Mizar5:
BRAVO!!
“I wonder where in the world the US allows another country to command American forces in time of large scale war?”
Depends on how you define “command”. There are different operational relationships possible.
In the late 70’s, for example, the US “forward deployed” a mechanized brigade in the far north of West Germany. The idea was that in a potential crisis with the Warsaw Pact, the brigade would be joined by the remainder of its division coming over from CONUS.
At least one other US division had this arrangement, down in the US “sector” of WG further south. What made this “northern” arrangment interesting is that this division would fight alongside West German units, under a W German Corps and /or Army commander (defense of the far north was exclusively a W German responsibility, if memory serves. The British were up there too, though, not sure how they fit in).
Of course the “supreme” NATO commander (back in Belgium) was a US 4 star general, but his deputy was always a German 4 star. Still, I suppose you could argue that this invalidates my example.
Regardless of the command arrangement, the key remains the “interoperability” of the two nations’ armed forces, at all levels. From what I gather this has never been a problem between them — and the US and ROK militaries share a common doctrine. US military units at the division, brigade, and battalion level would continue to fight as self-contained units, hopefully with continued KATUSA supplements available all the way down to squad and platoon level to help overcome the language barrier and avoid mishaps.
At its most simple level, if/when the command were to “change over”, the US commander would basically turn over the keys to the plans cabinet to his ROK deputy/counterpart and say:
“Here, it’s all yours — we’ll maintain a high ranking and extensive liasion detachment here with you, and the main body of US troops, aircraft, and ships will be
1) in the south of the country
2) offshore somewhere
3) back in CONUS ready to deploy on order from our President, after he has coordinated with yours
4) Some combination of 1-3.
If you decide that there’s a war imminent with
1) North Korea
2) PRC
3) combination of 1) and 2),
you tell us what you want us to do and where you want us to go (after both our Presidents have mutually approved the general concept, of course).
Sorry, we don’t do Japan; you’re on your own for that one. I realize it’s ‘the’ sentimental favorite for you, so sorry.
Oh, by the way, here’s our old plans for the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula. It’ll be your call now, if you decide you want these used in response to a North Korean attack. Just let our liasion people know where you want them and when; we’ll make sure they are delivered exactly when and where you say.
However, you should know ahead of time that any requests by you to hit targets in the PRC are likely to be disapproved — General Baduk.”
And, with that, Koreans assume all responsibility for the life and death decisions of war and peace, involving their own peninsula — just as the huddled masses of ROK citizens, yearning to breathe free, profess to demand of the USA. What’s not to like?
Paul H.,
But one thing I always wonder about is, if ROK president asks US president to nuke Pyong Yang/Wonsan/Beijing, would he really do it? (in 20 years time Uri may be discredited enough that an uber-rigtist ROK president is in office.)
It just seems to me that ultimately the person who must makes the life/death decision is the person who has the power to implement that kind of decision.
Hell, if I was the kind of US president who would actually nuke one of these locations given say, Seoul was nuked, I would rather prefer that ROK had some secret nuclear weapons program and nuke them themselves while US feigns ignorance. I’m not sure if the world would commend the American president for being virtuous and honoring the alliance for nuking on behalf of ROK or condemn her for continuuing to be the only nation on earth to use nuclear weapons against civillian population. Heck, America going into Iraq with a legitimate reason had this uproar, and US military did an exemplary job avoiding civilian casualty. It just seems like the ultimate lose-lose situation for America, and I can’t see how policty maker’s calculation would be any different.
If it came down to it, I would think that the ROK would come to the same conclusion as Israel, India, and Pakistan.
VW: Will some future US President approve use of tac nukes in Korea? Yes, that’s a $64,000.01 question all right.
You can postulate any scenario you want. But IMO yours is much too broad. I make a distinction between use of nukes on the battlefield vs their use against civilian population centers. This is an old and endless argument in nuclear war scenarios, as there’s never a guarantee that a potential enemy will make this same distinction (certainly Al Queda wouldn’t).
What I was thinking of as a “realistic” possible scenario for tactical nukes (meaning small ones and only used on the battlefield) would be only as a possible response to the mythical, magical “25,000 rounds-per-minute-sea-of-fire-on-Seoul-with-chemical weapons-to-boot” scenario (ie, an “updated” but non-nuclear attempt by North Korea to recreate its June 1950 success).
In order to quickly destroy the North Korean gun, multiple rocket launcher, and long-range ballistic missile positions. And, ideally, thus bringing such a NorK attack to a very abrupt halt, without an ensuing nuclear retaliation from them against the ROK, Japan, or Guam/Hawaii/Alaska/CONUS (yes, I know this is not guaranteed).
Anyway, such a NorK attempt to repeat June 1950 is now something that is arguably very unlikely to happen IMHO (for a whole bunch of reasons). Regardless of whether US ground troops remain in ROK or not.
IMHO, even in a “general war” situation such as a North Korean attack along the DMZ, there is no way that any US President is going to allow the use of any nuclear weapons (strategic or tactical) on any civilian populated target (such as Pyongyang) — unless the other side has used nuclear weapons against an allied civilian population first.
No matter what any “uber-right” hypothetical future ROK President may request (and I strongly suspect there won’t ever be such an ROK Prez).
But, you can’t separate the military from the diplomatic and political aspects. If a future ROK administration (left, center, or right) doesn’t consider the US a “reliable” ally for its “unwillingness” to go to the “extreme” for the ROK (however each faction defines these terms) — then they should
1) withdraw from the Mutual Defense Treaty with the US and seek a “neutral” stance, with reconciliation with the DPRK (arguably, the current trend anyway); and/or
2) seek a defense guarantee from the PRC; and/or
3) withdraw from the NPT and start building their own nukes.
Paul H.,
Wow. That’s pretty scary and sobering stuff.
how exactly “small” is a “small” nuclear strike? Would it be small enough to contain the fallout?
Good question, but the amount of fallout is not just a function of the size of the nuke.
Also of whether it’s burst in the air, on the surface, or beneath the surface (”bunker-busters”), and the wind direction and speed at the time of the burst.
If I remember correctly, an “airburst” actually generates less fallout (residual particle radiation), since massive amounts of dirt are not sucked up into the blast, contaminated by radioactivity, and then disseminated in the atmosphere. However, the direct effects of an airburst (flash, heat, shock wave, direct gamma radiation) would travel much further.
Since nothing can be guaranteed about what would happen after an initial use of nuclear weapons, extraordinary pressure would be brought to bear on their respective militaries by both the US President and the ROK administration to try to use conventional military means to stop the “25,000 rounds a minute”.
Whether this can be done successfully or not remains a matter for conjecture, but if you review the current posture of US “heavy” ground forces you can see that much of what remains of the US presence in the ROK is specifically there for conventionally countering NorK conventional artillery and rocket fire.
If the effort to conventionally suppress/destroy NorK artillery was unsuccessful, and the losses to the ROK were unbearable (massive civilian casualties), there would inevitably be pressure on both governments to authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons to stop it. Especially if the North Koreans were using chemical weapons (the US no longer has deployed chemical weapons of its own; the “doctrinal” US response to a massive enemy use of chemical weapons now is to consider retaliation with nuclear weapons).
I’d have to do more research, but I think one problem with our current US arsenal of acft and missile-delivered tactical nuclear weapons is that they are “too big”. There is a proposal within the administration to build smaller ones (to include “bunker-busters” designed to go after deeply buried targets), but any move to actually implement this immediately meets with intense and hysterical opposition from the current US administration’s political opponents domestic and foreign, all too anxious to portray them as “warmongers”.
US tactical nukes fired out of conventional Army artillery tubes were “small” enough, but these have all been removed from the US inventory (since 1991) and are (or have been) decommissioned.
All in all, a horrifying prospect. Since the people of the US do have a moral conscience (in spite of efforts around the world to portray us otherwise), there is (as you suggest) good reasons for other countries (you mentioned Israel) to want to control their own nuclear forces as a deterrent.
I agree wit Oranckay, the U.S. should not give wartime operational control to South Korea. Besides the fact that the U.S. military has far more experience, it also trains to much higher standards, all political correctness aside. Then there is the intel?? SK can do better in humint (on this target), but cannot compete with our imagery or sigint ? SK cannot make the best wartime decisions w/o superior intel. We could give to them, but that would create a time delay, plus their analyst may not be familiar with what they would receive. This specific transfer of power will not happen as long as U.S. troops will be a major player in any conflict on the peninsula; all the above reasons, plus our leadership will not trust the SK leadership. Commander-in-Chief Roh? No thanks.