Talk:Republic of Korea Armed Forces: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:54, 22 March 2007

Latest revision as of 16:11, 24 February 2024

(67 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{talk header}}

{{korean|class=start|importance=high|wg=milhist}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=

{{WPMILHIST

{{WikiProject Korea|importance=top|milhist=yes}}

|class= Start

{{WikiProject Military history

|class= Start|National=yes

<!-- B-Class parameters -->

|B-Class-1= no

Line 9 ⟶ 11:

|B-Class-5=yes

|Korean-task-force=yes

}}

}}

== External links modified ==

==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. [[User:DJ Clayworth|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. [[User:DJ Clayworth|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.[[User:koreantoast|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|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'. [[User:Identity0|Identity0]] 10:36, 2 January 2006 (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.

== 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 =). [[User:Deiaemeth|Deiaemeth]]

== 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.

==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. [[User:LordAmeth|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:

[http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2319/stories/20061006001505400.htm]

--[[User:Cab88|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 [[WP:WEASEL|weasel word]]s.

* 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.

-- [[User:YooChung|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. {{unsignedIP|74.227.149.123}}

: [[WP:WEASEL|Weasel word]]s 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 ... [[User:YooChung|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. {{unsignedIP|66.222.197.20}}

:: 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 [[WP:NPOV#Bias|bias]] or [[WP:OR|original research]].

::* The content is duplicated verbatim in the Marines page.

:: -- [[User:YooChung|YooChung]] 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[Republic of Korea Armed Forces]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=712919377 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

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.

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/04/18/2011041801112.html

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://asiasociety.org/korea/south-korea-unloved-republic

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

(Sorry, no translation)

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 21:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Chapter 2 of Armed Forces Personnel Act of National Defense Law of the Republic of Korea:

== External links modified ==

군인사법(軍人事法)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

제 2장 계급 및 분과

I have just modified 5 external links on [[Republic of Korea Armed Forces]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/820409029|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

Section 3

*Added archive https://archive.is/20070514061919/http://www.mnd.go.kr/Info/publication/WhiteBook/2006/index.jsp to http://www.mnd.go.kr/Info/publication/WhiteBook/2006/index.jsp

제 3조 (계급)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204002928/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q2/nr_020419m.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q2/nr_020419m.html

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108223327/http://www.globalbearings.net/2011/11/north-vs-south-korea-military_06.html to http://www.globalbearings.net/2011/11/north-vs-south-korea-military_06.html

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027064043/http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/cold-south-korean-defence-modernisation-moves-forward/ to http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/cold-south-korean-defence-modernisation-moves-forward/

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731233527/http://www.mnd.go.kr/mbshome/mbs/mnd_eng/ to http://www.mnd.go.kr/mbshome/mbs/mnd_eng/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

(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.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

(2) 준사관(准士官)은 준위(准尉)로 한다.

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 16:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion ==

(4) 병(兵)은 병장(兵長), 상등병(上等兵), 1등병(一等兵) 및 2등병(二等兵)으로 한다.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

* [[commons:File:20180914 pss 1.jpg|20180914 pss 1.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2019-11-08T13:22:15.642537 | 20180914 pss 1.jpg -->

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

== Globalfirepower as a source ==

Section 8

제 8조 (현역정년)

Is there really an acceptable reason to use globalfirepower as a source?

(1) 현역에서 복무할 정년은 다음과 같다. 다만, 전시·사변등의 국가비상시에는 예외로 한다. [개정 89·3·22, 93·12·31 법4695]<br>

Their rankings are terrible,it would be better not using it at all.

1. 연령정년<br>

For example in the "Navy Fleet Strengths (2021)", North Korea is 3° (with almost no navy), USA 4° or Bolivia is 18° between France and Japan... A country which doesn't even have an access to the sea!

원수: 종신

Basically i'm proposing to delete "The South Korean military is ranked as the 6th most powerful military force on the planet as of 2020" <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bobbobybobar|Bobbobybobar]] ([[User talk:Bobbobybobar#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bobbobybobar|contribs]]) 01:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Section 27

제 27조 (원수임명)

I agree. It’s not a credible source to use in my view. [[User:TheArmchairSoldier|TheArmchairSoldier]] ([[User talk:TheArmchairSoldier|talk]]) 12:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(1) 원수는 국가에 대한 공적이 현저한 대장중에서 임명한다.<br>

(2) 원수의 임명은 국방부장관의 추천에 의하여 국무회의의 심의를 거쳐 국회의 동의를 얻어 대통령이 행한다. [개정 63·12·16]<br>[[User:Bin2k1|Bin2k1]] 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)