Talk:Republic of Korea Armed Forces/Archive 1

Archive 1

Random comments

>Military branches: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Maritime Police (Coast Guard)

National Maritime Police can't be included in the military branches, for the agency belongs to South Korean Maritime and Fishery Ministry.

"The ground-based forces also have access to intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are controlled and maintained by the United States Forces: Korea (USFK).". What exactly does 'access to' mean here? If the missiles are operated and controlled by the US, and cannot be fired without US orders, then these are not part of the ROK military. DJ Clayworth 15:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I also think "one of the most powerful militaries in Asia" may be stretching the point. Although ROK military are sixth in the world in terms of size, at least three and possibly four of the ones larger than them are Asian (China, India, North Korea, Russia). While it could reasonably be argued that ROK might be a superior force to North Korean military thanks to better technology, I don't think the same argument could be made against China. DJ Clayworth 15:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"the military expanded to become the strongest in Asia after China." What about India, Russia and Pakistan?

I would also dispute the claim of the ROK Army having access to intercontinental ballistic missiles. Outside of your typical cruise missiles and other theater weapons, I haven't heard of deployment in recent times of ICBMs in the Republic of Korea, either by the ROK or the United States.koreantoast

"the military expanded to become the strongest in Asia after China." I would also dispute this as well. Certainly the ROK has one of the most potent militaries in the world, ranked 6th in size and armed with some of the latest equipment and modern tactics. However, to say its the strongest in Asia after China is a bit of a stretch; at very least one has to consider the forces of the DPRK!koreantoast

Can someone please either remove the 'list of euipment' which only lists general types of equipment, or replace it with a real list of the specific equipment types that are used by the military of Korea? As it stands, it may as well be a generic list of 'Equipment used by medium-sized first world militaries'. Identity0 10:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of military capabilities, SK's defence force is second strongest in Asia after China. India & Pakistan still have equipment procurement problems, where as SK have no such problem. DPRK was second strongest before but after 1990s, DPRK is no longer comparable to SK's capabilities. We sould account both army, navy, airforce, marinecorp, special force etc.. into measuring nations' military strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benonma (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

F-15 production

"Recently, the South Korean air force purchased 40 F-15Ks, dubbed Slam Eagles, from Lockheed Martin as part of their FX program. The aircrafts will be delivered by 2008, and the Korean air force might purhcase more F-15Ks."

Lockheed Martin doesn't manufacture the F-15. Boeing took over the production line from McDonnell Douglas. Purchase is also spelled wrong.

Signing post for archiving. Redalert2fan (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Major clean-up and seperation needed

This article needs to be in par with qualities of other "Military of XX" articles. We need seperate sections for the Army, Navy and Air Force (ROKAF article is right now a stub), more pictures, and a neat table sorting the current arsenal. I'll try to reorganize and add more flesh to the article, but I don't have much time right now. If anyone else is interested, it would be greatly appreciated =). Deiaemeth

Agreed. For instance, what does: "purchased in order to experiment their technology to be fitted with the ROK's XK2 MBT" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rank discrepancy

The rank system notes that "원수" stands for "President."

I think this is a misunderstanding.

Although 원수 元首: means "leader" or "head of state,"

육군원수 陸軍元帥: means "General of the Army" and is the equivalent of an O-11.

If anyone has doubts, check out the Rep of Korea Military (대한민국국군)in Wikipedia Korea.

Singing post for archiving. Redalert2fan (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

Further sources should be cited - I do not doubt that most of this can be cobbled together from the CIA World Factbook, other Wikipedia entries on the individual branches, and some degree of general knowledge. But it would look better if actual books or scholastic articles were cited. Secondly, beautiful work on summarizing each branch; nice sectioning, pictures, infobox. I'm a total sucker for those kinds of things. But, as the opening section following the list of branches appears to be the history section, it should perhaps be labeled as such, and should have incorporated into it or directly below it the discussion of UN Peacekeeping missions and involvement in Iraq. As it stands right now, those sections are below the sections on the branches and ranks, and it just doesn't really flow well thematically I think. So, needs a little reformatting, and references, but overall some very nice work. Thanks. LordAmeth 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

wartime Control by ROK forces by U.S.

Something should be added addressing the issue of wartime control as discussed in this article: [1] --Cab88 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias in Marine Corps section

The section for the Marine Corps is written in a rather biased manner, and I can't find justification for the bias in the included sources. A breakdown:

• First sentence is fine.
• Second sentence uses weasel words.
• Third and fourth sentences needs reliable sources. (globalsecurity.org backs this up somewhat, although the exact nicknames mentioned differ and there's no mention of Viet Cong shunning combat.)
• For the fifth sentence, are red name tags optional? (I.e., are normal name tags not red?) Otherwise I don't understand what's being "allowed" (which would also imply that the other services are not allowed to use red tags). And exactly who is allowing it? There's also no cite for the claim that allowing red tags is to allow them to show pride and honor.
• The motto probably belongs in the main article.

-- YooChung 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are the South Korean Marines not highly trained in martial arts? I have a book about Special Forces that includes this in their section on South Korean Marines. I don't have the book with me as I write this, but I can get source information for the book when I get home. If that is the weasel word you are referring to. If it is the bravery part, I have also heard of this and I think it can be left in, it doesn't harm anybody and it probably is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.149.123 (talk)

Weasel words are used in that it doesn't describe what group considers them that way and vaguely says "have been honorably mentioned in several foreign articles over time". I'd at least expect the latter statement to cite lots of sources, although I also think that it's not really an interesting statement to make in an encyclopedia. I would also prefer words such as "disciplined" instead of "bravery": the former at least has a hope of being objectively measured, while the latter is rather subjective.

Maybe it could be rewrote as "South Korean Marines are highly disciplined and have an extensive knowledge of martial arts." with citation to reliable sources. (I think them as courageous, disciplined, and great martial artists, but I recognize this as bias. I also realize that bravery is not discipline, but I do think they also have discipline in spades. However, I don't have access to a reliable and independent source, so I'm not comfortable with editing the section into a neutral tone.)

BTW, leaving an unsourced or biased statement in an article harms Wikipedia itself ... YooChung 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There's actually evidence that some Korean soldiers, though not all, threatened to wipe out entire villages if any of their soldiers were killed. Often the people in the villages that were threatened were family of the Viet Cong, and so obviously this would produce some reluctance to engage. The source is obviously biased and does not note this in the reasons. Also, the Viet Cong's main goal was the removal of the US soldiers from Vietnamese soil. The best way to do this is to kill US soldiers, and once the US soldiers leave, so will everyone else. The effect is not th same by taking Korean lives. Wasting lives on killing Korean soldiers would not have the same effect as fighting US soldiers, many non-US soldiers were in fact left alone during the war for this reason. However, the ratio of kills that the Koreans had during the war is very admirable, and this is the only thing that can be asserted about their high level of training. Numbers are the only objective counter, as i'm sure that the prowess of the Korean military has never been overtly mentioned by any Vietnamese general. Everything else said would be biased. It's unfair to the Korean military to overstate, as this is an important stage in our history. With the current trend in regaining military control, we need to make improvements to the system, to deny all flaws and overstate greatness would be to have a weak military that will never improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.197.20 (talk)

Problems with the controversies section:

• How is it intended to be sectioned?
  • Is it supposed to be a subsection of the Marines section describing more details? In that case it should go into Republic of Korea Marine Corps.
  • Is it supposed to be a section in its own right? In that case, it should be written accordingly without assuming that the Marines section was read, and it should probably be placed after the ranks or overseas operations section.
• The section as it is describes not much of a controversy but rather a criticism. A controversy would imply accusations or denials being flung around mainstream media, but the section contains nary a mention of such.
• No reliable independent sources are cited. Possibly bias or original research.
• The content is duplicated verbatim in the Marines page.

-- YooChung 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming from a United States Marine, I see nothing wrong with the statements of this article. Every source I have seen, including interviews with Marines who fought with the ROK Marine Corps in both Vietnam and Korea, and Marines who have trained with them recently coroborates everything that was said. And as a side note...even if the red name tags are mandatory, as Marines, we consider such things as priveleges. Ask any Marine about being allowed to wear an Eagle, Globe and Anchor. Or even our new Marpat cammoflauge uniforms. Even the 8 point cover that is part of our uniform (while required) is something we consider ourselves to be "allowed" to wear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.128.221 (talk)

Even if everything in the section is true, it still needs to be written in a neutral tone. (And even though I removed the controversies section because it was written like original research, it does cast doubt on the Vietnam War related content, so reliable sources would be appreciated.) And actually being allowed to do something and Marines considering themselves being allowed to do something are rather different. The section as it is written right now implies the former.

As a side note, I just realized that the possible bias stuck out like a sore thumb because the style and content are so different from the sections for the other services. YooChung 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some excerpts from the Armed Forces Personnel Act of National Defense Law of the Republic of Korea (국방법 군인사법)

Armed Forces Personnel Act of National Defense Law of the Republic of Korea:

Section 3 (Ranks)

(1) Commissioned officer ranks are subdivided into "Janggwan"-level ranks, "Yeonggawan"-level ranks, and "Wigwan"-level ranks - "Janggwan": Wonsu, Daejang, Jungjang, Sojang, Junjang. "Yeonggawan": Daeryeong, Jungnyeong, Soryeong. "Wigwan": Daewi, Jungwi, Sowi

(2) Warrant officer rank: Junwi

(3) Non-commissioned officer ranks: Wonsa, Sangsa, Jungsa, Hasa

(4) Enlisted ranks: Byeongjang, Sangdeungbyeong, Ildeungbyeong, Ideungbyeong

군인사법(軍人事法)

Section 3 제 3조 (계급)

(1) 장교는 장관(將官), 영관(領官) 및 위관(尉官)으로 구분하고 장관(將官)은 원수(元帥), 대장(大將), 중장(中將), 소장(少將) 및 준장(准將)으로, 영관(領官)은 대령(大領), 중령(中領) 및 소령(少領)으로, 위관(尉官)은 대위(大尉), 중위(中尉) 및 소위(少尉)로 한다.

(2) 준사관(准士官)은 준위(准尉)로 한다.

(3) 부사관(副士官)은 원사(元士), 상사(上士), 중사(中士) 및 하사(下士)로 한다.

(4) 병(兵)은 병장(兵長), 상등병(上等兵), 1등병(1等兵) 및 2등병(2等兵)으로 한다.

Section 8 제 8조 (현역정년)

(1) 현역에서 복무할 정년은 다음과 같다. 다만, 전시·사변등의 국가비상시에는 예외로 한다. [개정 89·3·22, 93·12·31 법4695]
1. 연령정년
원수: 종신

Section 27 제 27조 (원수임명)

(1) 원수는 국가에 대한 공적이 현저한 대장중에서 임명한다.
(2) 원수의 임명은 국방부장관의 추천에 의하여 국무회의의 심의를 거쳐 국회의 동의를 얻어 대통령이 행한다. [개정 63·12·16]
Bin2k1 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Branches of the ROK Armed Forces

According to Armed Forces Organization Act (국군조직법) of National Defense Law of the Republic of Korea:

"Section 2 (The Organization of the Armed Forces) (1) The Armed Forces comprises the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Navy includes the Marine Corps."

Therefore, it would be better to relocate Republic of Korea Homeland Reserve Forces and Republic of Korea Civil Defense Corps out of the Armed Forces. Bin2k1 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RoK MND logo.svg

Image:RoK MND logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited

I edited oversea operation and UN pko sections.
All data that I put there was given by the Ministry of Republic of Korea.
BTW, does anyone know the official name for anti-piracy mission in Somalia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadrun (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User IP 68.237.111.121

He is keep putting the wrong number of troops to the one I edited based on the latest information. etc.Kadrun (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed the article name to profer one

Republic of Korea Armed Forces is the official name of the military of South Korea (Republic of Korea). Kadrun (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

68.237.111.121 vandalizing the thread once again.

Kadrun (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on casualty on War in A'stan

There are 2 deaths for Korean unit in A'stan and 1 is KIA and 1 is non-KIA, but I have no idea what unit that 1 non-KIA is from. Kadrun (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Info box

The info box says that the number of South Koreans available for military service is over 120 million. Pretty sure that's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.115.85 (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

“The other professional civil service”

What is “the other professional civil service”? What is the difference to that one mentioned before? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)