3,300 Chinese cruise passengers stage Boycott at South Korean resort amid missile shield row

[Zsari]

While the action of the citizens are commendable, China should not rely on the public to carry out its foreign policy. Government should be ahead of the public in designating sanctioning targets and scope. Enacting legislature to sanction states that's endangering the security and interest of the country is the proper way to go. The same course of action should be taken in terms of export control of rare earth to Japan and the US. After all, both countries also have export control regime against China as well. Otherwise, litigation at WTO will put China on the defense, needlessly so.

 

[dingyibvs]

The OP Piece mentioned OPCON - Operational Control, having operational control is not the same as under their command...........The OP Piece is wrong to link OPCON to Theatre Command.

A Full Combat Command would have Tactical Control, Operational Control and Strategic Control over a unit.

US retain Operational Control in of ROK Army in times of war means they can organise their ranks and equipment (What we called Table of Organisation and Equipment or TO&E), how equipment is going to be used and men power is going to be used within ROK Army, that is the only thing US control in time of War. Lacking Theatre Tactical and Overall Strategic control mean US general cannot tell their ROK counterpart how to fight a battle or to set strategic objective.

The only ROK soldier under Direct US command would be the KATUSA soldier, they were part of 2 ID and 8th Army. Other than that and the JSA troop near the DMZ, they were under UN Control.

I don't know what your goal is in trying to obfuscate things. OPCON is defined as "the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission."

But really, these definitions don't matter very much. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to have one essential part of command under Korean command while another under American command. The deal between SK and the U.S. is that the Americans will take command of the SK military during time of war. You can all it OPCON, COCON, or whatever you want, but that's the deal.

The way SK and the U.S. has been able to skirt around the sovereignty issue is by making the SK government decide which units can be assigned to the Combined Forces Command (CFC). Since technically the U.S. only has OPCON over the CFC instead of the SK military, it would give the facade of sovereignty to SK. However, the reality is that all SK military personnel from all services are currently under the CFC and therefore would be under American command during wartime, and that's despite almost 30 years of promises of at least starting to pull some military units from the CFC and put them directly under SK command.

 

[jhungary]

I don't know what your goal is in trying to obfuscate things. OPCON is defined as "the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission."

But really, these definitions don't matter very much. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to have one essential part of command under Korean command while another under American command. The deal between SK and the U.S. is that the Americans will take command of the SK military during time of war. You can all it OPCON, COCON, or whatever you want, but that's the deal.

The way SK and the U.S. has been able to skirt around the sovereignty issue is by making the SK government decide which units can be assigned to the Combined Forces Command (CFC). Since technically the U.S. only has OPCON over the CFC instead of the SK military, it would give the facade of sovereignty to SK. However, the reality is that all SK military personnel from all services are currently under the CFC and therefore would be under American command during wartime, and that's despite almost 30 years of promises of at least starting to pull some military units from the CFC and put them directly under SK command.

I don't know where you find your "Definition" of OPCON, but according to DOD Dictionary

OPCON Defined as

Command authority that may be exercised by commanders at any echelon at or below the level of combatant command. Operational control is inherent in combatant command (command authority) and may be delegated within the command. When forces are transferred between combatant commands, the command relationship the gaining commander will exercise (and the losing commander will relinquish) over these forces must be specified by the Secretary of Defense. Operational control is the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission.

Operational control includes authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations and joint training necessary to accomplish missions assigned to the command. Operational control should be exercised through the commanders of subordinate organizations. Normally this authority is exercised through subordinate joint force commanders and Service and/or functional component commanders. Operational control normally provides full authority to organize commands and forces and to employ those forces as the commander in operational control considers necessary to accomplish assigned missions; it does not, in and of itself, include authoritative direction for logistics or matters of administration, discipline, internal organization, or unit training. Also called OPCON. See also combatant command; combatant command (command authority); tactical control.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/dictionary.pdf

Do noted that OPCON is a command, NOT A FULL COMMAND as I mentioned in my previous post. OPCON command aspect only in Organisational Level. As it pointed out in the explanation above. The way you use it, however, denoted a full command of a unit.

Each Command have its own works, the problem is, you can be under organisational strength, but without logistic, without training and doctrine, without tactical control over a unit, CFC cannot command actual troop on the ground. Yes, they can put all of ROK military under the CFC as that is organisational command, but then since CFC does not offer any of the logistic, TRD and tactical control. The "Command" is in name only.

it's like the relationship between 101st Airborne Division and XVIII Airborne Corp. The 101st was represented at OPCON level at XVIII ABC, however, the Tactical and Theatre Level command for 101st is still under regional HQ of 101st. The reason being, 101 is no longer an Airborne Division, they (XVIII Airborne Corp) would have no actual control of 101 beside the HQ attachment. The DOD doing this for the lineage of 101st Airborne Division. Not because of the actual level of Command and Control.

As I said, only the forces of attached to KATUSA and JSA are under US and UN command respectively.

 

[dingyibvs]

I don't know where you find your "Definition" of OPCON, but according to DOD Dictionary

OPCON Defined as

Command authority that may be exercised by commanders at any echelon at or below the level of combatant command. Operational control is inherent in combatant command (command authority) and may be delegated within the command. When forces are transferred between combatant commands, the command relationship the gaining commander will exercise (and the losing commander will relinquish) over these forces must be specified by the Secretary of Defense. Operational control is the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission.

Operational control includes authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations and joint training necessary to accomplish missions assigned to the command. Operational control should be exercised through the commanders of subordinate organizations. Normally this authority is exercised through subordinate joint force commanders and Service and/or functional component commanders. Operational control normally provides full authority to organize commands and forces and to employ those forces as the commander in operational control considers necessary to accomplish assigned missions; it does not, in and of itself, include authoritative direction for logistics or matters of administration, discipline, internal organization, or unit training. Also called OPCON. See also combatant command; combatant command (command authority); tactical control.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/dictionary.pdf

Do noted that OPCON is a command, NOT A FULL COMMAND as I mentioned in my previous post. OPCON command aspect only in Organisational Level. As it pointed out in the explanation above. The way you use it, however, denoted a full command of a unit.

Each Command have its own works, the problem is, you can be under organisational strength, but without logistic, without training and doctrine, without tactical control over a unit, CFC cannot command actual troop on the ground. Yes, they can put all of ROK military under the CFC as that is organisational command, but then since CFC does not offer any of the logistic, TRD and tactical control. The "Command" is in name only.

it's like the relationship between 101st Airborne Division and XVIII Airborne Corp. The 101st was represented at OPCON level at XVIII ABC, however, the Tactical and Theatre Level command for 101st is still under regional HQ of 101st. The reason being, 101 is no longer an Airborne Division, they (XVIII Airborne Corp) would have no actual control of 101 beside the HQ attachment. The DOD doing this for the lineage of 101st Airborne Division. Not because of the actual level of Command and Control.

As I said, only the forces of attached to KATUSA and JSA are under US and UN command respectively.

Here's where I found the definition (page xx - xxi):

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf

Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, is the capstone publication for all joint doctrine, presenting fundamental principles and overarching guidance for the employment of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Is the JP1 an authoritative enough of a source for you? Maybe you know what OPCON means to the US better than the Joint Chiefs? The SK military being under US command has been a widely known fact for decades now, I'm shocked that anyone would argue this.

 

[jhungary]

Here's where I found the definition (page xx - xxi):

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf

Is the JP1 an authoritative enough of a source for you? Maybe you know what OPCON means to the US better than the Joint Chiefs? The SK military being under US command has been a widely known fact for decades now, I'm shocked that anyone would argue this.

JP1 is the doctrine menu for Operation, JP stand for Joint Publication. The full explanation was in the glossary from Defense Technical Information Center. You are simply interpreting half of the definition.

And no, ROK army is not under US Command, I served in Korea as part of USFK contingent, do you think I don't know what the situation is? Or I have command to 550,000 troop in Korea I don't know?

Let me give you another hint, if the publication actually mean command, they would have used C2 Structure instead of OPCON. I can't believe someone is actually trying to argue the other way.

by the way, JP1 define OPCON as a command structure BELOW CCDR and COCOM


Combatant Commands

CCDRs exercise combatant command (command
authority) (COCOM) of assigned forces. The CCDR
may delegate operational control (OPCON), tactical
control (TACON), or establish support command
relationships of assigned forces. Unless otherwise
directed by the President or SecDef, COCOM may not be
delegated.

Page 16, JP1
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf


Operational Control

OPCON is the command authority that may be exercised
by commanders at any echelon at or below the level of
CCMD and may be delegated within the command.
OPCON is able to be delegated from and lesser authority
than COCOM. It is the authority to perform those
functions of command over subordinate forces involving
organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning
tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative
direction over all aspects of military operations and joint
training necessary to accomplish the mission.

Page 22 JP1
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf

In short, US having OPCON over ROK Forces during wartime does not mean US forces have combat command over ROK Force even as per JP1 definition.

 

[8888888888888]

I think China just wants to apply minor pressure for now since there will be a new left-wing Korean government that could make a deal with China to remove Thaad.

 

[Jlaw]

China leaders should initiate a real stance and apply the boycott starting with tourism.