S. Korea, U.S. need to deploy 460,000 forces in N. Korea after its collapse: scholars

By Hwang Doo-hyong
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 (Yonhap) -- South Korea, the United States and their allies
would need to send up to 460,000 troops and other security forces -- three times
more than the U.S. troops deployed in Iraq -- to help maintain stability in North
Korea in case of the North's collapse, a U.S. think said Wednesday.
"In an insurgency, according to one Defense Science Board study, as many as
twenty occupying troops are needed for every thousand persons, implying a force
of 460,000 troops, more than three times the number of American troops in Iraq,"
the Council on Foreign Relations said in a report. "Coping with such a
contingency would likely be impossible for the South Korean and American forces
to manage alone."
The report, written by Paul Stares, director of the CFR's Center for Prevention
Action, and Joel Wit, senior research fellow at Columbia University, broke down
the number to a maximum of 230,000 in military personnel and additional police
forces, depending on "the level of acquiescence to foreign intervention."
They based the figures on "previous experiences elsewhere," saying, "The rule of
thumb for the number of troops required for successful stability operations in a
permissive environment is somewhere between five and ten per thousand people."
North Korea's population is about 23 million.
"If former elements of the North Korean military, its security and intelligence
forces, or its large special operations force were to resist the presence of
foreign forces, the size of the needed stabilization force would escalate
dramatically," said the report titled "Preparing for Sudden Change in North
Korea."
The scholars noted securing North Korea's weapons of mass destruction, including
nuclear warheads, chemical and biological weapons and long range missiles, should
be a top priority.
"Locating, safeguarding, and disposing of materials and stockpiles of the North's
estimated six to eight nuclear weapons, four thousand tons of chemical weapons,
and any biological weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, would be a
high priority, especially for the United
States," they said.
North Korea detonated its first nuclear device in 2006 and is believed to possess
ballistic missiles capable of reaching the western part of the mainland U.S.
"Neighboring countries would want to ensure not only that those weapons do not
pose a threat to national security, but also that any unified Korean state is
WMD-free," they said.
The scholars advised the U.S. government to seek closer cooperation with South
Korea, China and other relevant countries, saying, "The likely challenges
associated with sudden change in North Korea are too big and complex to be
addressed by the United States and South Korea alone."
"Cooperation between the principal powers provides the best chance of coping with
these daunting problems and of ensuring a stable, peaceful, new regional order,"
they said. "Failure to accommodate national interests, on the other hand, could
have profoundly negative consequences for the evolution of Korea, the stability
of northeast Asia, and U.S. relations with major allies and other countries in
the region."
They stressed the need for the U.S. to seek "a quiet dialogue" with China "to
reduce the risk of misunderstanding and friction in a crisis involving North
Korea," saying Chinese interest in North Korea has increased due to the six-party
talks, where China has played a significant role as the host country for the past
five years.
China is also the biggest benefactor for its communist ally, North Korea, as the
largest supplier of oil and food and the biggest trading partner and investor.
The scholars proposed that the multilateral nuclear talks on ending North Korea's
nuclear ambitions be expanded to include "a standing institutional mechanism for
regional security cooperation in northeast Asia that, among other benefits, might
prove especially useful in coordinating and legitimating responses in the event
of instability and collapse in North Korea."
"Even if the six-party talks fail to achieve their primary goal, the habit of
regular consultation that has developed since they began is a strong endorsement
for institutionalizing this mechanism among the five parties excluding North
Korea," they said.
"Neither should the focus of such a mechanism be confined necessarily to the
discussion of security issues," they said. "Economic and environmental concerns,
to name the obvious, would also benefit from greater dialogue and collective
action."
hdh@yna.co.kr
(END)