Maj. Bill wrote:
"If not, then when we bomb them, there's a pretty good chance we can keep the ROK's out of it."
That's an interesting proposition, but I don't believe it will make any difference.
The NORKs will hit South Korea anyway, well.... just because they can.
Perhaps they would, perhaps not/ But at least one of the goals is to make a military threat seem more credible. So to that point, whether North Korea actually attacks South Korea is less relevant than whether it appears
we believe they might not if our troops have been withdrawn. The point is to make PRC and NORK both believe that the orange nut in the White House is really going to strike.
And I'm not sure the NORKS would strike if we withdrew our troops. A limited U.S. strike that just focused on ballistic missile or nuke strikes is not the same as a general war. If the Norks were to respond to a limited attack by launching a full bombardment of Seoul, then they'd know that is essentially signing their own death warrant.
There is also a third possible outcome that may actually be the most likely. The NORKs have complained forever about the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, claiming that it is a provocation, etc.. If we were to withdraw our troops, the NORK's might be content with claiming they have finally won their great victory and defeated the imperialists, and
therefore would agree to Chinese requests that they end their nuke/ballistic missile programs.
If the result of all this is that there are no more U.S. troops in South Korea, and the NORKs no longer have a nuke or ballistic missile program, I'd say that is a huge win.
In terms of the Hobson's choice, we
absolutely help defend South Korea, and make that very clear at the time we are removing troops as well. The reality is that our ground troops are largely a tripwire anyway -- the ROK ground forces are very good. Where we could help the most is with air and naval assets that can be brought to bear quickly even if ground troops have been withdrawn.
