http://www.mnd.go.kr/mndEng_2009/DefensePolicy/Whitepaper/index.jsp

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html

or, http://www.rand.org/commentary/2010/01/21/KH.html

As for the monetary compensation, the ROK Army guys I work with would like to know where the other 80,000 won is going. They’re still getting 20. Sorry I can’t find documentation on that only hearsay but I’ll tend towards the horse’s mouth.

Hmmm, last I checked none of these countries are bordering North Korea, which, in case you didn’t know, has the 4th largest military on the planet. The closest comparison is Taiwan, and it has the defensive benefit of being an island. There is no question, however, that these nations are taking advantage of the American umbrella and are failing to spend enough for their defense.

And this percentage rate is not counting the opportunity costs of subjecting most of the males in the country to an average of two to two-and-a-half years of mandatory military service during some of their most productive years. Those men are paid far less than the comparative rate they would get in the United States, which also cuts down on the monetary amount, but it does come at a significant cost.

Many nations in the Western world still have conscription with very little “opportunity costs,” as you so put it. But this goes to show that the South Korean military is even weaker than one thinks, since they have to spend a massive amount of money from an already small budget to train personnel who will only be useful for a short period of time thereafter. South Korea should fully professionalize its military.

The idea that “South Korea doesn’t take its own defense seriously” is a fiction. Besides, South Korea as of late (i.e., under Lee) has been expanding its cooperative role with the US outside the Peninsula, and that should also count for something.

Yes, Lee has been an improvement over the previous two administrations.
But he still has a long ways to go.

I think the investment focus the ROK has on high tech, such as AEGIS, F-15K, K2, and K21 IFV at the expense manpower, training, and short range transport shows that the ROK doesn’t take its defense seriously.

I actually think these programs should be applauded, however most South Korean military modernization and acquisition programs have been cancelled in the past few years, and much of the equipment they operate is aging and falling apart.

While many may cringe at the thought, the time has come for swift action and you know as well as I know that the only military superpower that exists today in the US.

Military action against North Korea? Horrible idea unless otherwise provoked.

Conscription is 22 months and its going down 1 month each year until 2014, bottoming out at 18 months. Hasn’t been over 2 years for a while now. Also, while the unemployment rate is relatively low in South Korea as a whole, between 3-3.5%, that doesn’t include the 20s generation, the pool from which these conscripts are drawn. That rate is hovering around 9% and doesn’t include the 40% who have withdrawn from labor force pool to focus on education, owing to the poor job prospects. The conscripts only get paid about 20,000won a month, which is peanuts. However, all of their necessary expenses are paid for AND they have a job for just under 2 years which would be unlikely given the job prospects for their generation in their “most productive years.”

“South Korea’s 2.8 percent is higher than most of the US’s allies, including Canada, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, Germany, the UK, and Taiwan. (Japan is the only one with a built-in excuse.)”

Of all of the US allies, only the Philippines has any significant threat that the military has to deal with. Comparing % of GDP for defense between nations where 1 lives under the constant threat of war and the others are at relative peace without the same prospect for war seems like cheating.

I think the investment focus the ROK has on high tech, such as AEGIS, F-15K, K2, and K21 IFV at the expense manpower, training, and short range transport shows that the ROK doesn’t take its defense seriously. Or, maybe a better way of putting that, it doesn’t find the threat of north Korea to be credible. My question is, how much of that credibility comes from the US presence.

South Korea doesn’t take its own defense seriously and is heavily reliant upon the United States. The S.K. government spends only 2.8% of its GDP on defense (less than 20% of the budget), which is a little more than half of what the U.S. spends.

South Korea’s 2.8 percent is higher than most of the US’s allies, including Canada, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, Germany, the UK, and Taiwan. (Japan is the only one with a built-in excuse.)

And this percentage rate is not counting the opportunity costs of subjecting most of the males in the country to an average of two to two-and-a-half years of mandatory military service during some of their most productive years. Those men are paid far less than the comparative rate they would get in the United States, which also cuts down on the monetary amount, but it does come at a significant cost.

The idea that “South Korea doesn’t take its own defense seriously” is a fiction. Besides, South Korea as of late (i.e., under Lee) has been expanding its cooperative role with the US outside the Peninsula, and that should also count for something.

South Korea doesn’t take its own defense seriously and is heavily reliant upon the United States. The S.K. government spends only 2.8% of its GDP on defense (less than 20% of the budget), which is a little more than half of what the U.S. spends. Meanwhile, they continue to operate aging military systems and many military modernization programs have been canceled and the money rerouted into social welfare programs instead. The U.S. probably spends more on its bases and troops assigned to the Pacific to protect S.K. than their own government does.

The S.K. people have been insulated for too long under the American umbrella and have grown comfortable and apathetic. I once thought we had good reason to be here, but if the South Koreans don’t even take their own defense seriously and refuse to recognize the truth, why should we be there?

Compare that to the standard 10 years a north Korea conscript serves. You can’t train a good soldier in 18 months.

That pretty much says it all.

Kushibo, if you think I was downplaying Korean losses in the war then you, either willingly or not, ignored the point.

My apologies to you, who I know wasn’t downplaying Korean losses, but the statement reminded me of a common meme whose disseminators really do seem to forget that South Korea’s losses were many times that of the US and the UN and Korea still expends considerable treasure and severe opportunity costs in its own defense. But that is not your meme, so my apologies for glibly addressing your comment in this way; you are right about Rhee, though Rhee also saw many of his own countrymen die for what he had hoped to achieve.

And I don’t like the watering down that Roh Moohyun brought to the ROK military and its alliance with the US, and I’d like to see some of the policies he inflicted reversed or altered.

ditto that. If a war is worth waging it’s worth the whole country being involved. I’m very uncomfortable with the mantra since 2001 of “preserving our way of life” as that has panned out as the military doing all the work. I know I’ve seen all the “we support our troops” commercials but really… how much of the nation is involved in actively providing support to the troops? It’s an out-of-sight, out-of-mind convenience for us with a patronizing of our troops on a national scale.

Kushibo, if you think I was downplaying Korean losses in the war then you, either willingly or not, ignored the point. It’s tragic, but implicit, that people die in a war taking place in their own country. Not the point. But if you deny that Rhee demanded the US continue to fight for reunification by force since his army could not do it alone, and that he considered it betrayal when Eisenhower followed the US’ best interest in getting out, and now the ROK government today insists on American soldiers being committed to a conflict that they continually absolve their own citizens responsibility for, through downsizing of the military and reduction of conscript service, then you will never be concerned with getting the point. Per the 2020 defense reform enacted during the Ro admin, by 2014 conscripts will only serve 18 months. Compare that to the standard 10 years a north Korea conscript serves. You can’t train a good soldier in 18 months. And you certainly can’t expect reservists in the south who report for mere hours a year and shoot an eye-popping 5 rounds a year to pose a threat to any trained enemy. Yet still with all that complacency, the US is absolutely essential in defending the ROK? Rhee’s philosophy is alive and well in the ROK and while Rhee might have been the exception in 1953, the philosophy has gained for too much traction with the new generation.