I posted this in another thread about the US in South Korea and am interested in what other OTBers have to say.

I wish we would pull out of South Korea (& Japan). Last I heard we have about 30,000 troops along the DMZ compared to over 700,000 South Koreans. If we left, the North Koreans very well might overrun the south.Then what? Then Japan goes nuclear in two weeks time, China shits itself. Japan (like Germany in Europe) should be the regional security guarantor not the USA. They are both rich enough, big enough, and highly capable. Because of their history, the local bullies (Russia, China) would respect them enough not to find out if the current generation is as tough as their grandparents were. When Japan & Germany finally stand up instead of relying on the USA to subsidize their defense, then Yankee can finally go home from those regions.

What's the downside to this? Other than Germany and Japan having to spend their own money on Defense? Are there any other nations in Europe that have the size, wealth and respect of Germany (with apologies to France and England)? Ask the same about Japan in Asia. For America, we'd have to relocate/discharge about 200,000 military personnel but in today's economy that would hardly be noticed. America's image might even improve with other countries having to play "world police" on their own continents. In the 80's and 90's it was tough back home to close bases, the time has long passed to close these bases in Germany, South Korea and Japan.

You already know what I'm going to say (oops...am I speaking for the forum out of turn again?....so sad to see chucky has an enforced holiday.).......

America should indeed pull it's personell out of Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

Firstly, (but perhaps not most importantly) because it needs the money.

Secondly, because it has no business in any of those places.

You already know what I'm going to say (oops...am I speaking for the forum out of turn again?....so sad to see chucky has an enforced holiday.).......

And I hope you are extremely pleased with yourself for goading and baiting him into it. I cannot believe how smug you are.

so sad to see chucky has an enforced holiday.).......

You can join him. I asked people to drop the argument yet you keep baiting.

...again, please return to the original topic, and no more on this.

Can I suggest that this thread is cleansed and at this point only the OP remains, one reason being, anyone starting to respond like me now, will see an intial response that is usual in the tit-for-tat reprisal counter measures and so possibly, posters may feel either the need to defend or attack depending on their view point.

My opinion is to give the OP an opening, let it go.

Just my view point:

Although I agree in this instance with BJ and CV, it does inially prejudice at this point initial views.

Moss

"......When Japan & Germany finally stand up......."

..they already did in WWII, last century, and we all know the outcome and devastation those two countries created.

They won't do so again.

LaoPo

LaoPo, so you think Germany and Japan if given the chance would behave aggressively as they did 70 years ago? What makes you think that? What signals have they given off in the decades afollowing WWII?

There is more than one way of standing up than being aggressive with military might. Japan and China have learned you get much further by taking over through commerce then you do by war..

There is more than one way of standing up than being aggressive with military might. Japan and China have learned you get much further by taking over through commerce then you do by war..

That is basically true but also enforced isn't it?

I thought as a condition of surrender both Japan & Germany agreed to limitations of size & function of their military.

There is more than one way of standing up than being aggressive with military might. Japan and China have learned you get much further by taking over through commerce then you do by war..

That is basically true but also enforced isn't it?

I thought as a condition of surrender both Japan & Germany agreed to limitations of size & function of their military.

I'm not sure if they are still forced to limit the size of their armies (Perhaps some clever and more bothered bugger could google this). They are both quite a potent threat and have the ability (and freedom) to produce nuclear weapons but decide not to. Quite smart of them really, you can't be expected to pull the trigger if you don't have the gun.

I think you are right their status quo being enforced though, legally or not. Ian makes it sound as though they wanted to go down that route which is frankly not true.

There is more than one way of standing up than being aggressive with military might. Japan and China have learned you get much further by taking over through commerce then you do by war..

That is basically true but also enforced isn't it?

I thought as a condition of surrender both Japan & Germany agreed to limitations of size & function of their military.

It's been 65 years. Japan is no longer under MacArthur's rule. They can vote to change their constitution like any other country (including Germany). Japan and Germany don't need nuclear weapons for at least one good reason - they could make one in about two weeks. They aren't poor third world nations struggling to get the know-how. They are practising self-restraint and with another, larger country guaranteeing their security for the past 65 years, that has been easy to do. They aren't war-torn, recent enemies anymore that need to be monitored, governed, or protected. They have long since matured and should realize that as the big boys on their own block, they should take over responsibility for regional security. Time to take off the training wheels.