WT Forums

Quick question here. I was reading about the basic plan we have going for pulling out of bases in Germany, Japan and Korea, and minimizing our military and troop presence in those places. Interestingly enough, Kerry has criticized the Bush administrations plan to downsize overseas, saying that a permanent American presence fosters international stability.

Not making a partisan issue here, just an observation. IMO, if a base isn't needed or required anymore, then paying money to upkeep that unneeded infrastructure takes money away from necessary force modernization ala equipment and training. That's very true with bases in the US, and IMO, even more true with bases overseas. Additionally, for overseas bases, I'd thing we'd want a very minimal US footprint, for simple soverenty issues.....akin to having Argentinian troops based in the US.

I'd much rather we get rid of excess infrastructure, than keep it around...in the case of the US bases....just because some senator or congressman needs to keep the pork in his district so jobs and towns don't wash away.




Edited by - Type 7 on Aug 05 2004 06:53 AM

So what was the quick question? If it was do we agree to the draw downs overseas then I would have to say YES!

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

I agree with the draw Down. I'm sure we wont need to kick Europes ass again for another 50 Years.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I agree with the draw Down. I'm sure we wont need to kick Europes ass again for another 50 Years.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
......france (spit) maybe....they could always use a good old fashioned ass reaming.

Smitty

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So what was the quick question? If it was do we agree to the draw downs overseas then I would have to say YES!

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

LOL. Shoulda said "why would Kerry be against this?" for my quick question. I would think he'd be for this. I know I am.

GERMANY,JAPAN AND KOREA WHY DO WE NEED BASES?

KOREA ?????? SHOPPING TRIPS

JAPAN AND GERMANY, HUMMMMMMM OK HERES THE QUESTIONS IMO

WHAT DO WE HAVE AS FAR AS BASES IN THE PACIFIC THAT IN CASE OF "CONFLICT" WITH NORTH KOREA OR PRC COULD HANDLE AIRCRAFT AND SHIPS THAT WE WOULDNT BE HELD HOSTAGE BY? BECAUSE GETTING OUT OF JAPAN WOULD MEAN OKINAWA TOO.
GUAM IS A LONG DAMN WAY OVER THE WATER,EVEN SITTING IN A NICE SEAT TAKING NAPS
AND "DEAGOOOOOOOOO" WOULD BE A BLOODY BIG SPOT IF IT WAS THE ONLY BASE WEST OF AUSTRAILIA !!!!!!!!

GERMANY THE FIRST AND SOMETIMES LAST STOP TOO AND FROM CONFLICTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST,
WHERE WOULD YOU MOVE THE SUPPORT AND UNITS NOW THERE SO THEY WOULD AND COULD PLAY A MAJOR ROLE?
HOW MANY WOUNDED WOULD DIE FROM WOUNDS ENROUTE TO THE US FOR MEDICAL CARE?
OR THE US COULD USE WITHOUT BEING HELD HOSTAGE IN EUROPE TOO?
THE UK IS PRETTY FAR AWAY,ITALY I WOULDNT COUNT ON ALOT OF SUPPORT AND GOOD OLE TURKEY,THEY ALREADY SCREWED US ONCE.
I WORKED MED EVAC ACFT (C-9'S AND C-141'S) BOTH OVERSEAS AND CONUS AND BELIEVE YOU ME " IT AINT EASY SWITCHING AIRCRAFT FROM CARGO TO MEDICAL AT THE DROP OF A HAT BECAUSE THEIRS SPECIAL EQUIPMENT DEPENDING ON WOUNDS THAT HAVE TO BE LOADED AND THEIR ARE JUST SO MANY CREWS AND PLANES BESIDES THE TANKER CREWS PLUS MAINTANCE THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE EVEN MORE TIME.

PLUS WHERE WOULD YOU BASE THE ESCORT FIGHTERS?
I'M SORRY GUYS OUR PILOTS ARE GOOD,BUT 15 HOURS FLYING AND STRAIGHT INTO A FIGHT WITHOUT STOPPING,AND I'M NOT TALKING BOMBERS COULD DO THAT WITHOUT SWITCHING PILOTS AND THEN GOING FOR REARMING?
AND IF WE REALLY GOT INTO A SLUG FEST HOW MANY TRANSPORTS COULD WE LOOSE OR TANKERS BEFORE IT EFFECTS US?

I'M PLAYING A 1984 WARPLAN "WHAT IF PLAN"? LETS JUST SAY I SERVED ALOT OF COFFEE AND DONUTS WHILE ON T-39'S WHEN I WASNT NEEDED ON THE "GREEN LIZARD"4476 .


" The nation that will insist in drawing a board line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards" --SIR WILLIAM BUTLER

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Excellent logic Goose. I agree with the logistical problems you have pointed out. When we flew from a base in Europe to our little heaven in the Middle East last year, it still took about 8 or 9 hours. That's a long time if you have a hole in your chest or if you are shipping something thats top priority.
The other reason it took so long is nobody wants to give us a straight shot in over their airspace. We had more zigs and zags than you could shake a stick at. We still need those bases.

Smitty

OUR TRIP TO THE BOX TOOK 16 HOURS FROM SEMYOUR JOHNSON TO KFIA. ON A KC-10 AND OUR EQUIPMENT WAS ONLY WHAT WE COULD TAKE LIKE TOOLS,.

THE 84 PLAN WAS STILL USING THE PI AS A MAIN HUB,WITH YOKOTA,KADENA,GUAM, SUPPORTING FIGHTING A WAR WITH THE PRC OVER TWAIN(?)PLUS KOREA AND LOOKING HOW BIG THE FORCE WAS THEN AND THEY THREW IN A CONFLICT IN THE GULF AREA AND WE COULDNT DO IT.

OUR FOOT HOLD IN THE PACIFIC IS A TOE HOLD NOW I REALLY THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO LET THE PRC TAKE TWAWAIN BACK.

(I'M LOOKING AND CANT FIND A STICKER WITH THAT NAME ON IT,OR CHINA I MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT)

" The nation that will insist in drawing a board line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards" --SIR WILLIAM BUTLER

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

PRC can't even take Taiwan back from the Taiwanese, let alone the USN.

Every carrier we have is a floating airbase.

Just because the USAF can't play in the game, it does not mean we can't still intervene.

The Super Hornet would in such a case get to prove it's worth- one way or the other.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

BUT YOU GOT TO GET THERE FIRST, THE NAVY AIRWINGS KICKASS BUT HOW MANY COULD GET THERE IN LETS SAY 5 DAYS?

PLUS YOU GOT THE PRC FLEET COMMING OUT TO WELCOME YOU.(SUBS)

IF THE MIDEAST WAS QUITE AND WE COULD JUST WORRY ABOUT THE PRC,THEY WOULDNT TRY IT IN THE 1ST PLACE.
TAIWAN WOULD PUT UP ONE HELL'VA FIGHT BUT THE NUMBERS GAME WOULD WIN.

PLUS YOU HAVE PART OF THE POPULATION THAT WANTS TO RE-JOIN









" The nation that will insist in drawing a board line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards" --SIR WILLIAM BUTLER

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

USAF could play if politically we made the choice to defend Taiwan. Thats not a sure thing at this point.

The military is more about politics than finances right down to the garbage collection and office cleaning.

But do we need basing in Europe. IMHO Not in large numbers of either bases or personnel. A Storage depot/Staging/training area or two, an airbase or two, a navy anchorage or two should suffice.

We no longer keep a Carrier Strike group in the MED full-time. And the Kitty Hawk suffices for the most part in the Western Pacific.

Japan and Korea could possibly be reduced but only slightly. AFAIK Combat troops in Korea only amount to two reinforced Brigades. The other is at Ft Lewis WA. The 3rd Marine Divison is even smaller than the two Brigades in Korea. One source states it equivilant to a reinforced Regiment(akin to an Army Brigade I believe).

Guam is under-utilised(especially I understand Anderson AFB) but it like Japan/Okinawa has very small finite land boundaries and weather problems in the form of typhoons.

But the people there are according to the reports Ive seen very receptive and accomadating.

The USAF prescence in all these regions doesnt seem to be out of line. Correct me if Im mistaken.




Edited by - rickusn on Aug 07 2004 09:47 AM

Type 7 could you possible link or post the "basic plan". I missed it somehow. Thanks. Rick

BTW IMHO FWD basing in Japan and Korea is still imperative. The events of 1950 should be enough to convince. Korea could quickly become untenable for some operations and Japan as a fall-back/reinforcement bastion is a necessity. Unless of course China and N. Korea are no longer an imminent threat or they are capable of protecting themselves. And I havent even mentioned Taiwan.

Someone needs to decide if we are going to be players in Asian(or European for that matter) security or not and have a coherent, realistic plan. Anything less is a sure recipe for disaster on many levels.

Hope they aren't relying on Ft. Lewis to support forces in Korea. They're all playing in the sand.

Livin' life in the fast lane and just passed a blur reading "BRIDGE OUT!"

Is that where the other brigade of the 2nd Inf Div is now? Or just the other brigade of the 25th Inf Div. Or Both? The other two 25th brigades being in Hawaii and supposed/nominal reinforcement for Korea.

Don't know, other than Ft. Lewis is now a vast habitat for crickets.

Livin' life in the fast lane and just passed a blur reading "BRIDGE OUT!"

1 of the Bdes from Korea is in Iraq now too, so there's only 1 BCT in Korea right now.

Let's not forget that the USAF's heavy bomber fleet can strike anywhere on the globe from it's bases in CONUS.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

I AGREE RICKUSN,

IN EUROPE YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN STAGING AREAS, MAYBE NOT ARMY UNITS THEY COULD BE THE "FAST MOBLIE FORCE" YOU KNOW WHO WANTS.

THE USAF HAS TO BE A PLAYER,IF EVEN FOR THE RE-FUELING AND SUPPLIES

" The nation that will insist in drawing a board line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards" --SIR WILLIAM BUTLER

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Heres something on Korea from AF magazine:
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said in June that South Korea is “exactly the place you don’t want Cold War-style stuff,” because a large, garrison-style army plays to North Korea’s strengths. That is why he favors the proposed cuts to the US presence in South Korea.

“The last thing you want to do with somebody who’s got a million people under arms is to go and try to meet them symmetrically,” Schoomaker told the Defense Writers Group June 15. “What you want to do is make that [standing army] a huge disadvantage for them,” he said. “You want to fight them differently. That’s what we’ve got the capability of doing.”

The US has announced it may reduce its 37,000 troops in South Korea by 12,500. However, the Pentagon is in the process of spending $11 billion to upgrade its force on the Korean peninsula and has made other moves to increase combat power in the region, such as stationing bombers on Guam, within easy striking distance of North Korea.

“The best way to fight is on our terms,” Schoomaker asserted. North Korea’s communist regime is “hugely vulnerable if we fight it our way,” he said.

The key to defending South Korea from a mechanized invasion are the Chorwon and Munsan corridors.

Cut those, and the invasion is reduced to the speed of an infantry march. South Korea's terrain mostly sucks for manuever warfare.

This is no secret(and is a key to OpPlan5027- the defense of ROK), I agree with the General, no large garrison is needed to chop the extremely limited corridors needed for a large scale mechanized advance to pieces with air and arty assets.
You'd have to continually hit them, but if those two corridors stay closed, the US should have enough time to get major elements of the 82d Abn,75th Rangers, a Stryker Bde from the 25th ID and a MEF in place before the DPRK can get across the Han or Imjin rivers(Figure 20 days).

ROK forces are no joke, and they hold a huge technological advantadge over the North in most key areas. They should be entirely sufficient to slow the DPRK advance until the US can properly reinforce.

OpPlan5027 calls for a joint USMC/USA amphibious invasion consisting of a reinforced MEF and the 82d Airborne into North Korea, North of PyongYang and attacking south at the capital. This would be a full scale amphibious invasion and Para drop on a scale not seen since Inchon.

Japan btw, is under treaty obligation to allow staging of all US forces neccesary for the defense of ROK if hostilities should break out. That treaty was approved by the Japanese back around 99-00. So the USAF will definitely have a seat for the show even if the bases in the South were somehow denied to us by the DPRK.

One other point of note. OpPlan5027-98 specifies massive PREEMPTIVE air and artillery interdiction attacks into North Korea if an invasion is deemed to be imminent. So long as political constraints do not prevent that from happening, the plan for the defense of the South is quite sound. In enacting that plan the North would be destroyed as a soveriegn state.




"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Sniper good points. But once again you have me confused. You start out like this:

"Just because the USAF can't play in the game, it does not mean we can't still intervene."

and then you show us all how they can. I know you were talking about Taiwan and not Korea but some things you said since about the USAF playing applies:

"Let's not forget that the USAF's heavy bomber fleet can strike anywhere on the globe from it's bases in CONUS"

Sorry if Im misunderstanding.

Well i guess my point was twofold:

1) The USAF has the assets to strike any target regardless of geography or basing rights.

2) Even if the USAF didn't we'd still have to be prepared to fight and win a war without the guys in blue. Fortunately, our carriers should let us do that.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Well our carriers(Plus dont forget AEGIS Cruisers and Destroyers) may be able to provide an umbrella over and around Taiwan(maybe including some coastal parts of mainland China) for a short period.

But probably not without USAF tanking. Heavy bombers taking out air and missle bases, command and control nodes among other high-value sites will be a necessity. And hopefully the F/A 22 Raptor will be around to clear the skies of ALL & ANY hostile aircraft outside of any defensive envelope the USN could provide otherwise we could soon be staring defeat in the eye. As for land warfare. Except for possible SOF missions I dont see it.

The problem with both Korea and Taiwan is that things could get very ugly for a protracted period of time.

We shouldnt lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of the world places no intrinsic value on human life. Most of the others only give it lip service. Even we as Americans often fail this test. The examples are all around us.

I DONT THINK EITHER THE PRC OR THE DROK WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH USING TATICAL NUKES,THE PROBLEM WOULD BE IS THE US WILLING TO RESPOND IN KIND?
PLUS THEN WOULD OUR ALLIES BE WILLING TO SUFFER THE AFTERMATH?

THE USAF HAS GOBAL REACH.BUT IT HAS TO HAVE TANKER SUPPORT,THATS WHY WE STILL HAVE OKINAWA CANT REALLY AFFORD TO LEAVE.

" The nation that will insist in drawing a board line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards" --SIR WILLIAM BUTLER

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Yes and the USN relies on the same tanker support for other than blue-water operations. With no F-14s with nearly double the CAP time 3 hours vs 1.8 of the SuperHornet and no dedicated tankers. Only the capablity provided by the F/A 18E squadron USAF tanker support would be necessary for any sustained CAP over Taiwan or strikes against the Chinese mainland.

Nukes are suicide for either China or N. Korea. It would happen so fast there would be no thinking of any aftermath IMHO. Now chemical or biological weapons might make our response more measured but the end-state may well end up being the same. Devastation on a vast scale almost too overwhelming to contemplate.

I would restress that OpPlan5027-98 and newer ensures the destruction of the DPRK as a soveriegn state, without the use of nukes.

If war starts it is the US/ROK intention to remove the DPRK from the face of the map. Nukes would only make it easier to accomplish.

I cannot stress enough that the two primary invasion routes into the south should be very easy to close for the Allies. Once they're closed, the whole invasion is doomed.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan