SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (97590)5/8/2003 9:48:45 AM
From: Hagar  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
But neither should we provide him any excuse for attacking S. Korea due to the presence of US troops on the border. The "tripwire" defence, IMO, no longer serves our strategic goals. The south has more than sufficient resources to defend itself from an invasion from the north. Thus, US troops (not strategic equipment stores) should be either pulled back towards Pusan, or depart completely. Such a move might provide Kim a sufficient "face saving" opportunity that he can claim "victory", and lead to his "honorably" dismantling his nuclear weapons.

I suspect this is in the plans. The Pentagon would require a delay to "re-work" plans on how to respond the a NK invasion. Most likely the majority of current one depend on the large presence of US troops up front. Once plans are approved using US troops to the rear, stateside or scattered nearby in the pacific, then the troops might be moved.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News