US Considering re introducing tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea.....

www.thejakartapost.com...



"Seoul officials and experts cautioned against the redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula proposed by some in the United States, which they fear could refuel an atomic arms race in Northeast Asia.

The US House Armed Services Committee on Thursday approved an amendment to the fiscal 2013 national defense authorization bill that calls for the re-introduction of the sensitive weapons to South Korea, according to the diplomacy publication Foreign Policy.

While the South Korean government is not openly criticizing the idea, concerned ministries say that Seoul remains fundamentally in favor of denuclearization of the peninsula and that such developments will bring little security benefits for Seoul. "

Interesting article. With only 1 Armored Brigade and an Aviation Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division actually left in Korea, sounds like some are getting antzy about the defense of S. Korea......And the South isn't out right objecting.

I am, and am not, a little surprised at this, people must be a bit concerned about the mental stability of Kim Jong Uhn

en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

They'd have to admit to whats buried at the DMZ before debating terms like RE-introduce...

er..oh? did I say that out loud?

reply to post by SrWingCommander


I am so sick of America making people in this part of the world a target.



Yankee go home! Today!

Hmm if the US doesn't give nukes will this results to this scenario

reply to post by SrWingCommander


Nothing good can come from re-introducing S. Korea with tactical nuclear weapons... Honestly, what's the point? We give them a Nuke so if N. Korea does anything extreme they can deploy the weapon back on them? I guess in times of war two wrongs always make a right.... Deploying a nuclear weapon on a country that you border never sounds like a good idea... Actually, using nuclear weapons, period, never sounds like a good idea....

I'll give you a Stanton Friedman...or S & F

It says in that article that there are no U.S. nukes in other Countries other than America...that's false and is pretty much common knowledge. This article is constructed properly but I'm calling it propaganda. Didn't the U.S. stock South Korea with nukes back in the day? If so, those nukes probably never left the Country.

those nukes would paint Beijing, if anything.
they would be a deterrent to North Korea sure, but the real power lies behind them and their benefactor.

for the same reason the missile shield in Turkey, Romania, Poland and Spain is being established,
to contain the Russians, this, my guess would be to surpress China?

And then some people say the US isn't causing trouble or provocation around the world...Sure what would happen if Russia gave Mexico some nukes... The US babies would be crying..

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
It says in that article that there are no U.S. nukes in other Countries other than America...that's false and is pretty much common knowledge. This article is constructed properly but I'm calling it propaganda. Didn't the U.S. stock South Korea with nukes back in the day? If so, those nukes probably never left the Country.

When I was an ROTC cadet, back in 93-94 things with Korea got pretty close to going to full war (in fact, Clinton twice had quietly started moving air forces for that reason). Anyways, we got to discussing the situation with one of our instructors (an artillery officer and our detachment commander). He flat out stated that most of the artillery batteries in theater (M109 Paladin 155mm) had tactical nuclear shells, and that specific valleys along the potential North Korean assembly areas/axis of advance just north of the DMZ (and a few South of the DMZ) had already been pretargeted. The yields were small enough (usually 5-10 kiloton) that if airbursted fallout would be "minimial" and the deep valley's would channel the blast waves across the axis of attack but not outside the valley, keeping destruction pretty much to the attacking infantry/armor columns. This would only be ordered if US/SK could not hold the line against the North Koreans from overrunning Souel and had likely already used Chemical or Biological weapons.



www.cdi.org...

Now, he might have been just "theorizing", and we were all MSIs (Freshman/Sophomore Cadets) so no security clearance to hear anything classified, but there sure had been some thought put into it...........

By the way, I believe by 96' all tactical nuclear shells for 155mm artillery had been withdrawn. My guess is any nuclear weapons still in Korea, (or as above resent now) would be B-61 aircraft bombs. What countries we keep nukes in is classified, but other then the NATO bases in Germany/Netherlands, I don't think any actually are based outside of the US. Between Ohio Class subs, aircraft carriers, and stateside bombers we can get them where we need to if we need to soon enough.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
And then some people say the US isn't causing trouble or provocation around the world...Sure what would happen if Russia gave Mexico some nukes... The US babies would be crying..

That's exactly the point. Remember the missile crysis in Cuba back a few years ago? What is the criteria that says that deploy WMD's to SK its good thing? Did you guys consider the possibility that NK can just get SK BEFORE they can launch it? Then they will have one more nuke...

It's not like we would be "giving" nukes to S, Korea. They would be with our forces.

This is more political statement then anything, we can have nukes there pretty quickly if we need to, they just aren't currently based or deployed there.