(From L) South Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Cho Hyun Dong, Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Takeo Mori and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman pose for photos ahead of talks in Tokyo on Oct. 26, 2022. (Pool photo)(Kyodo)
VOA: US, South Korea, Japan Vow More Cooperation to Deter North Korea Threat
Seoul, South Korea — The United States, South Korea, and Japan vowed to strengthen cooperation and increase deterrence measures ahead of an expected nuclear test by North Korea.
The commitment came during a meeting Wednesday in Tokyo between senior leaders from the United States, South Korea, and Japan.
“We agreed that an unparalleled scale of response would be necessary if North Korea pushes ahead with a seventh nuclear test,” said South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Cho Hyun-dong.
North Korea this year has launched a record-high number of missiles, including a ballistic missile that flew over Japan earlier this month.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I always believed that both Japan and South Korea were/are "unofficially" under the US nuclear umbrella. I guess they want to make it official.
Senior US Official Says Ready To Protect Asian Allies With A Nuclear Deterrent
US vows full military defense of allies against North Korea -- AP
North Korea warned of 'unparalleled' response from US, Japan, South Korea if it launches a 7th nuclear test -- FOX News
US threatens North Korea with nuclear deterrent to protect the South, Japan -- SCMP
Japan, U.S., South Korea agree to beef up deterrence against North Korea -- Kyodo News
US Ready To Protect Asian Allies With Nukes, Biden Official Says In Tokyo -- Zero Heddge
13 comments:
Poor, poor Poster.
As if Japan would start something with China in this day and age.
Put on your thinking cap Poster and remember that North Korea with the blessing of Stalin (Russia) and Mao (China) invaded south Korea and not the other way around.
Also remember that North Korea has regularly tried to infiltrate the south via tunnels not the other way around.
Poster must need a shower at the end of the day after so many lies and dissimulation.
Your analysis is spot on. Why should the US declare this when it is already an assumed situation? Strange thing to do??
one possible reason....
Because they are gearing up and want no doubts to where they stand.
If I face three adversarys and may go to war with one: then i protect my flanks by warning off all others.
Good Call
Anon (1:09PM),
Things are much more complex than you try to make them out to be. SK has a problem with NK. They are very, very tech savy. Develop their own nuclear deterrent. The US simply isn't in a position to take the lead role on this with the myriad of other issues we face.
With that said the ambiguity of the previous situation worked fairly well for a time. Our "allies" knew they had de facto nuclear protection but not being formally written meant the US could conceivably back away even if such an action was/is unlikely. With this in writing my concern is it will make it easier for them to drag us into a conflict that runs contrary to our interest.
For what it's worth, I doubt anyone would have expected at the time of the Korean war that anyone would have expected US forces to still be there over 70 years later. There needs to be a timetable to get our personnel out. It's time for SK to grow up. Having a sizeable chunk of our military under their de facto control is unacceptable to me.
Getting our personnel out will likely have the benefit of improving relations with SK. At least one survey from around 2008 indicated that about half of the SK military officers viewed the US as the primary enemy with the other half viewing NK as the primary enemy. I see little reason why much if anything would have changed and think it reasonable this could be extrapolated to the population as a whole. This has the potential to get us drawn into a conflict where we are caught in the middle with hostile forces surrounding us. This doesn't seem like smart strategy to me.
Insults and name calling aren't helpful to the situation and neither is simply repeating the messaging of the leadership class who has had a habit of dishonesty and flawed analysis. If you wish to sacrifice your life for SK, you could join their military or volunteer for service for your SK friends in some other way. They can use the same way they've used America for decades now. Personally I prefer a much more balanced and respectful relationship than the one with them we currently have. In time, that would be more likely to lead to real friendship and cooperation.
"For what it's worth,"
It is worth nothing. It is pity we do not have up and down voting at blogger.com.
"I doubt anyone would have expected at the time of the Korean war that anyone would have expected US forces to still be there over 70 years later."
Not expected? You are a liar or you should not ever calculate odds. There was no peace treaty. There was an armistice. Earth to Poster, an armistice is not the same as a peace treaty. In addition there are the continual provocations and threats by North Korea.
"Getting our personnel out will likely have the benefit of improving relations with SK"
Wrong again bucko. George W. Bush withdrew 3,000 troops due to the demands of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The South Koreans complained. More South Koreans complained than complain against the US, when various socialist/communist entities pay people to protest.
"At least one survey from around 2008 indicated that about half of the SK military officers viewed the US as the primary enemy with the other half viewing NK as the primary enemy. "
Poster asserts and provides no proof.
This is all I could find.
"A survey found that half of South Koreans would support North Korea in an extreme scenario where North Korea and Japan went to war. What do you think of this statistic?"
"This has the potential to get us drawn into a conflict where we are caught in the middle with hostile forces surrounding us."
More assertions without proof or sound reasoning by Poster. His Poster Lord Haw Haw's unacknowledged, illegitimate child?
"There needs to be a timetable to get our personnel out. It's time for SK to grow up. Having a sizeable chunk of our military under their de facto control is unacceptable to me"
"ROK/US Combined Forces Command (CFC) was established in 1978. South Korean forces remain independent unless during a time of war in which they will subordinate themselves to the command. It is commanded by a four-star U.S. general and its Deputy Commander is a four-star ROK Army general"
Wow, effer Poster lied. Anyone shocked?
"Insults and name calling aren't helpful..."
They are. You are prodigious liar.
You need to look up defacto in the dictionary fella.
At the time of the armistice I think it more likely than not that some type of formal peace treaty would have been expected. Anyway, SK could have spent the time building their forces to solve the problem without us. We can't make open ended commitments of this type. We simply don't have the resources.
Part of the problem with the 3,000 troops is SK appears to view our personnel as theirs to be used/abused as they see fit and they reacted accordingly. I believe a serious effort to draw these forces down in a reasonable timeframe would have massive positive utility for us.
2008 was awhile back. The article where this was referenced was from worldnetdaily which at that time proved to be a generally reliable source. I believe it to be accurate. Woefully one sided relationships such as the one between the US and SK do tend to foster resentment. I would suspect this would be no different.
If you think SK is really going to subordinate itself to US command, I'm not sure I can help you. Besides it would seem unwise in the extreme to actually trust them based upon current relations. At least this is my take on this. The US simply has to many issues we are trying to deal with right now to take on the responsibility of leading SK military forces and not being trustworthy is another reason not to take that on.
"Part of the problem with the 3,000 troops is SK appears to view our personnel as theirs to be used/abused as they see fit and they reacted accordingly."
More assertions without proof.
The hits (Poster lying) just keep on coming.
Maybe Poster could get off his fat ass and actually look at the SOFA that the US has with South Korea.
Based upon how allies typically behave towards us I believe the assertion is a valid one. Without being there in person and witnessing the proceedings first hand it would be impossible to "know" for certain. I observed the body language of the SK leadership and tone of voice as various comments were made at that time about that situation and the conclusion I have reached is they can't be trusted. They behaved a bit like a spouse or friend who is used to having their way with someone only to have them stand up to them. I'm used to working with people in high pressure situations and have great deal of experience in reading situations like this. Conclusion: if you want to trust SK leadership, it's an error.
Of course this does not mean we can't or shouldn't work with them when it is of mutual benefit. Perhaps you consider something of there of such importance you would be willing to sacrifice US interests for it. I don't. Hopefully we get new leadership in Congress soon who will reorient our foreign policy in ways that are both compatible with our interests and sustainable.
Just playing with HTML
bold
Italic
Anyhow
This is a completely innocent link
Mr poster is right on this one.
How do I know. Been there. Roks are tough, hard headed and i worked with them. They tolerate us and appreciate our help. but they also see us kind of like spys and some sort of unwanted controling guest. Like a pushy uncle that comes to stay at you house. You dont really like the guy, but you tolorate him.
yep b.poster lobs a ringer
Post a Comment