Also hard to imagine that we go to zero presence. At minimum we can have a couple hundred “advisers” on site to continue to operate as a deterrent at much lower cost.

It’s hard to imagine a lot of things that have actually happened these days.

I think the troops in South Korea have always been referred to as a “trip-wire” force, as that they automatically guarantee a US response to any invasion. If there were no troops there, politicians would hum and haw and then it would be practically too late to do anything. I wonder how those soldiers feel about being sacrificial lambs?

We basically had the same thing in Western Europe during the cold war.

I don’t think anyone thought our guys over there could have actually stopped the Soviet forces of they decided to roll into Western Europe.

That’s what I always figured. The troops provide the US legitimacy if there is an invasive, and American Troops dying is a pretty good way to get the population on board. Without it, the US public would be more then happy to abandon it’s obligation and stick their heads in the sand (especially the current racists in charge), and both China and North Korea knows it. Hopefully our allies know this as well, and will be able to keep our troops there as well.

They were supposed to execute a fighting retreat across Europe while air power pounded everything until the nukes landed more or less. And also to make sure Americans were in the line of fire so no one could hand-wring as the Soviets steamrolled through Germany into France and not do anything.

All that said, when I was in Germany in '77 and '78, then again for a shorter period in '84 and '85, there was a lot of skepticism among young Germans that the US would really jump in if it came to a Warsaw Pact invasion.

Re: Korea, does the RoK have such an inconsiderable force that they + the Americans couldn’t hold back a DPRK invasion? I mean, even if the DPRK has a lot more soldiers on paper, is their economy in any condition to support the supply lines required for more than a week?

I could see 77 and 78, as the US was reeling from the defeat in Vietnam and Communism seemed to be on an upswing, but 84 and 85 was in the midst of Reagan’s Cold War build-up.

Not us guys in Berlin Brigade. Since we’d technically be deep into East Germany if hostilities broke out, we were supposed to scatter and turn into a guerrilla fighting force in the forests of Germany. The joke was that if that happened, we’d just turn all our facility signs over to the side that said “P.O.W. Camp” and save everyone a lot of trouble.

Sid Meier worked this all out ages ago!

I’m gonna “pull a Trump” here and say “that’s what I heard,” although in my case it was directly from German students in their twenties and early thirties during the fall and winter of '84/5 (needless to say they weren’t big Ronnie Reagan fans, nor was I, although he was a damn sight better President than the current one).
And @Telefrog, glad you guys never had to do that.

Why is it I have never heard of this game?!

I never heard that before, great story.

I knew several guys stationed over there during the cold war, the M1 tank driver told him his job was to get on hill and start shooting. Instead during training, the company got lost during a beer run, he hit an electical power line with his M1’s antenna. This set of an AP round inside the tank, which miraculously didn’t kill anybody but did severely injury a couple of guys.

It also led to question of why commanding captain thought it was a good idea to allow a bunch of totally drunk soldier to drive M1 tanks and other assorted vehicle around the German countryside.

Yeah, everyone in West Berlin was pretty boned.

To be fair, everyone in Western Europe was pretty boned.

Considering the Pact’s war plans could with a reasonable degree of accuracy be summed up as carpet bombing with tactical nukes, the entire world would have been boned.

And yet we got out of the Cold War without blowing up the world. Whenever I feel pessimistic I just remember that.

Human life in general wasn’t gonna do too hot.

I have seen it argued that if the North couldn’t do it quickly that the South is much better armed and much more capable of replacing equipment.

I was in Europe before the 1980 election and the German youth I spoke to (hell, I was 25) feared Reagan. I wonder how they felt about him in 1989?

The trouble, as I understand it, is the proximity of Seoul and the majority of the population to the border. Seoul itself is over 9 million, the metro 25 million. Which is literally half their entire population.

Which makes them very vulnerable to bombardment. Much more so than the north.

Which in a prolonged war, yeah they are better positioned to retool and resuplly. But that initial onslaught would be brutal, both in terms of cost and casualties.