KiloGolf wrote:eehnie wrote:The 25000+ are only the military forces, not civil, the entire structure is bigger. Plus, the infrastructure of the US in South Korea is significantly bigger, because the deployment was between 45000 and 75000 soldiers between 1955 and 1970, was between 34000 and 46000 soldiers between 1971 and 2004, and it was around 325000 soldiers in the time of the active phase of the war. In case of conventional war in Korea, this is not enough, but one of the main goals of this deployment is to open the door to a fast increase of the US troops surely until the levels of the active war in the 1950s.
And all this has been and is between 500 and 1000 Km from Vladivostok.
I would expect about this a reaction in agreement with what I see about the US deployments in East Europe.
You guys are seriously kidding me...
The last what Russia wants is to see T-90s together with this force instead of the T-80s.
The land component of the USFK is not an easily deployable force in its totality (20k), no need to argue about it. Their mission is not to reach the border with Russia or the PRC. They are not a threat for either of these countries, they can't be a threat unless their numbers get boosted to the 100k mark.
Do not try to hide the reality. No-one is silly here. This is the same type of argument used by the US to justify the presence of the missles in Europe. They say: "they are not vs Russia, they are vs Iran". You are saying now: "They are not vs Russia, they are vs North Korea".
Note that the PRC notation for China is basically used for those who recognize Taiwan in the terms their government wants (Republic Of China). It is not habitual in Europe.
Russia knows that to retire the T-80s from South Korea is expensive for South Korea.