&w=3840&q=100)
South Korea's military shrinks 20% in six years amid record-low birthrate
South Korea's active-duty military has shrunk by 20% over the past six years to 450,000 troops, mainly due to a steep decline in the number of men eligible for the country's mandatory service, according to a defence ministry report released Sunday. The demographic squeeze is tied to South Korea's record-low birthrate, the lowest in the world which is straining recruitment and threatening operational readiness.
The report, shared with Democratic Party lawmaker Choo Mi-ae, noted that the active military stood at about 563,000 in 2019, already down from roughly 690,000 in the early 2000s. Between 2019 and 2025, the population of 20-year-old males—the typical age for enlistment, fell by 30% to 230,000.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
South Korea's military has steadily declined since the early 2000s when it had about 690,000 soldiers. The pace accelerated during the late 2010s and there were about 563,000 active-duty soldiers and officers in 2019.
North Korea is believed to have an active-duty military of about 1.2 million, according to the latest estimate by the defence ministry in 2022.
In the period between 2019 and 2025, the population of 20-year-old males declined by 30% to 230,000, according to government data, the age when most men who pass a physical exam enlist for military service, which is now 18 months long.
The military has cited improved capabilities as a key reason for shortening service periods, made possible by a military alliance with the United States and the development of a defence industry that has become a major exporter of arms.
Able-bodied men served 36 months in 1953 when the Korean War ended in an armistice.
South Korea's defence budget, at more than 61 trillion won ($43.9 billion) in 2025, is larger than the estimated size of North Korea's economy.
Still, the military is 50,000 troops short of the number of troops adequate for maintaining defence readiness, the ministry said. About 21,000 of the shortfall is in the non-commissioned officer ranks, it said.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
South Korea is one of the world's fastest ageing societies and has the lowest fertility rate in the world at 0.75 in 2024, which signifies the average number of babies a woman is expected to have during her reproductive life.
Its population, which hit a peak of 51.8 million in 2020, is expected to shrink to 36.2 million by 2072, according to a government projection.
With inputs from agencies
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
New York next? Donald Trump's Washington DC federal-control move puts focus on his threat over Zohran Mamdani
US President Donald Trump came through on one half of his threat of a federal takeover of Democratic-ruled cities — Washington and New York. He invoked the Home Rule Act to bring the Washington DC police department under direct central control. New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani at a press conference in New York City on August 11 as he launched a 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour that will take him to all of the city's areas to speak against President Donald Trump's agenda.(Getty Images via AFP) The DC move came just weeks after Trump said at a cabinet meeting that his administration would seize control of New York City, too, if the Democratic Party's mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani, was elected in the November polls. Trump called him "communist" while Mamdani, whose poll pitch is based on welfare and service subsidies, calls himself 'a democractic socialist'. On DC, Trump's team was reportedly in touch with Washington mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, over law-and-control takeover. At the time, Trump also talked about New York City, and attacked Indian-African-origin leader Zohran Mamdani. "If a communist gets elected to run New York, it can never be the same. But we have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to," Trump had said. "I can't tell you what yet, but we're going to make New York great again," Trump had said, echoing his Make America Great Again (MAGA) slogan. On Monday, Trump termed his Washington law-and-order takeover as 'historic action' and 'liberation day'. He said he would start with DC, but a wider crackdown on crime would go further to other Americans. 'We're going to clean it up real quick, very quickly,' he said. Washington has been self-governing since 1973 but Trump has cited crime stats to argue for the federal takeover. The capital's autonomy has been partial, though, under the Home Rule Act, which gives it an elected mayor and council but leaves the laws and budget with the Congress. Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani launched a 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour in New York City on Monday. He has said he would 'Trump-proof' the city to, among other things, protect immigrants from what he terms unlawful detentions and potential deportations.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
How South Korea's military has shrunk by 20% to just 450,000 active troops
South Korea's military faces a sharp decline in soldiers due to the world's lowest birth rate, a new report by the country's defence ministry has highlighted. The size of the army has fallen by 20 per cent in just six years, to just around 450,000 active troops read more The pool of men aged 18 to 28, the group eligible for conscription in South Korea, has been shrinking at a rapid pace. File image/Reuters South Korea's military is facing a growing problem: it's running out of soldiers. A new defence ministry report shows that the size of the South Korean army has fallen by 20 per cent in just six years, to just around 450,000 active troops. The sharp decline is tied to a steep drop in the number of men of enlistment age, a consequence of South Korea having the world's lowest birth rate, the report said on Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But why does this matter so much? And what does the state of the military actually look like? Here's a closer look. Shrinking South Korean military The most immediate reason for the decline is demographic. The pool of men aged 18 to 28, the group eligible for conscription, has been shrinking at a rapid pace. Government data shows that between 2019 and 2025, the number of 20-year-old men, the age when most who pass the physical exam begin their now 18-month-long mandatory service, fell by 30 per cent to just 2,30,000. South Korea's military has been getting smaller for decades. Back in the early 2000s, the country had around 690,000 soldiers. By 2019, that number had dropped to roughly 563,000, and the pace of decline has only picked up since then. The number of military divisions has also been cut significantly, from 59 in 2006 to just 42 today, with many units either disbanded or merged to make up for the shortfall, BBC reports. Why this matters South Korea's shrinking pool of eligible recruits is not just a problem for filling enlisted ranks, it's also creating a shortage of officers, a gap that could cause serious operational challenges if left unchecked, according to the defence ministry report made public by Democratic Party lawmaker Choo Mi-ae. The concern is heightened as the country is still technically at war with its nuclear-armed neighbour, North Korea, which is believed to have an active-duty force of about 1.2 million troops, based on the defence ministry's 2022 estimates. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That imbalance in troop numbers, the report warned, puts South Korea in a 'structurally difficult position to succeed in defence.' South Korea's military has been getting smaller for decades. A new defence ministry report shows that the size of the South Korean army has fallen by 20 per cent in just six years, to just around 450,000 active troops. File image/AFP To maintain a credible deterrent, it urged 'decisive action at the national level' to keep the military at no fewer than 500,000 troops. Currently, about 21,000 of the shortage is in the non-commissioned officer ranks. To slow the decline, the defence ministry has floated several measures, from increasing the recruitment of female soldiers to offering bonuses for short-term service to cutting the number of men assigned to noncombat duties. But critics argue these steps won't be enough to solve a problem rooted in demographics. A senior defence ministry official, speaking anonymously, acknowledged that growing advanced technology can help, but only to a point. 'There are limits to replacing people with technology, especially when facing a heavily armed adversary right across the border,' the official told The Korea Times. Choo stressed that the issue requires urgent attention, warning that the debate is not abstract. 'It's a matter of who will be there to defend the country when the time comes,' she said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD South Korea's birth rate plummets to a new low The shrinking size of South Korea's army is part of a much bigger problem, the country's rapidly ageing and declining population. South Korea has held the unwanted title of the world's lowest birth rate for years, but new figures show the situation is worsening. According to government data, the total fertility rate, the average number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime, is just 0.75 in 2024, which is far below the replacement rate of 2.1 needed to maintain a stable population. South Korea's 2024 fertility rate rose to 0.75, the government seeks 1.0 by 2030. File image/Reuters This means each new generation will be significantly smaller than the last, with fewer young people to enter the workforce and serve in the military. The country's overall population, which peaked at around 52 million in 2020, is now projected to shrink sharply in the coming decades, is expected to shrink to 36.2 million by 2072. Despite billions spent on subsidies, housing incentives, and childcare support, surveys show many young South Koreans are reluctant to have children due to high living costs, long working hours, and concerns about job security. Others cite a lack of work-life balance and changing social attitudes toward marriage and parenthood. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With input from agencies
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
On economic policy, Trump may be his own worst enemy
The path of US politics over the past 10 years is scarcely believable — and keeps getting weirder. A miraculously successful amateur politician, now half a year into his second term in the White House , isn't content to take his wins and count his achievements. Instead, he seems eager to bring the ceiling down on his own head. Meantime, his career-politician opponents aren't just failing to hold him to account, they are doing what they can to shield him from falling debris. Forgive the median voter for being disgusted, bewildered or both. If systemic political failure is possible, this must surely be what it looks like. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Consider a recent poll in the Wall Street Journal. On issue after issue they care most about, voters say they trust Republicans more than Democrats — yet, at the same time, they disapprove of the way the administration is managing them. Voters prefer Republicans to Democrats on the economy, inflation, immigration, tariffs, foreign policy and Ukraine. Yet on each of those topics, there's net disapproval of the president's initiatives. In particular, '51% say the change he is bringing is a form of chaos and dysfunction that will hurt the country. By contrast, 45% agree with the alternative statement that he is making needed and helpful changes.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas Prices In Dubai Might Be More Affordable Than You Think Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Quote Undo The implication for both political parties might seem clear. The White House needs to calm down and choose consolidation, not further controversy and 'chaos.' And the Democratic Party needs to dump (not just downplay) its plainly unpopular positions and concentrate on projecting competence and moderation. They're both doing just the opposite. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could suspect each party of planting agents in the other, secretly dedicated to guiding the enemy to defeat. I'd be deeply impressed by the skill of these covert operatives, instead of stunned by the parade of willful political dysfunction. Live Events To be fair, in wrenching itself in a new direction, the Democratic Party has structural problems: zero leadership and activists who'd rather lose than compromise. That's challenging. The Republicans' dysfunction is more puzzling. They have a leader, to put it mildly, and he delights in winning above all. Yet Trump is willing to put his record of seemingly impossible political wins at risk for little or no return. On immigration, clear majorities agree that the border should be secure, there's a difference between legal and illegal immigration, and some of the millions of people who came to the US illegally (especially those guilty of other offenses) should be sent home. Merely by committing itself to this, the administration defeated the Democrats. But clear majorities don't support rounding up any and all such violators regardless of their circumstances, without regard for due process, and using a hurriedly expanded force of masked enforcement officers and opaque network of makeshift, ostentatiously punitive detention centers. Resorting to such methods seems a good way for the administration to lose an argument that it had won. The same goes for economic policy. As it intended, the White House has successfully dismantled the post-war trading system and moved the US into a new regime of discriminatory tariffs and managed trade. The recent Big Beautiful tax-and-spending bill abandoned all pretense of fiscal prudence and accelerated the trajectory of unsustainable public debt. Yet despite warnings of inevitable disaster, the S&P 500 continues to set records, seeming to validate Trump's thinking. So far, at least, another big political win. The political threat to this new economic regime isn't its long-term consequences — which in any case are uncertain. Large forces are in contention. Will the push to growth and productivity from AI-driven innovation, less regulation and generous tax relief for investment overpower the pull of tariff-driven stagflation, ill-conceived industrial policy and the crowding out of investment due to excessive government borrowing? Hard to say. But the debate about those questions will last well beyond the current administration. The politically salient threat to Trump's economic policies is short-term disruption in financial markets — the risk that Wall Street will stop applauding Trump, turn against him and drive the economy into a recession. As with immigration, the conduct of economic policy might have been calculated to sabotage the whole enterprise. Name three things capable of provoking a financial-market veto while delivering no offsetting benefit. How about stoking endless uncertainty over future tariffs, kneecapping the Federal Reserve's operational independence and undermining trust in official statistics? Done, done and done. Trump has escalated his unwarranted attacks on Fed Chair Jerome Powell (whom he appointed back in 2018), going as far as to drum up accusations of impropriety over the central bank's renovation of its headquarters. Last week he appointed Stephen Miran, a key thinker behind Trumpist heterodoxy, to a temporary position on the Fed's board, while the search for a suitably compliant successor to Powell proceeds. Doesn't it serve Trump's purposes to install a servant at the Fed? No, it doesn't. For a start, the idea that the Fed is scheming to defeat Trump's broader policy agenda is preposterous. Even if an obedient Fed were to deliver the much lower policy-rate that the president thinks appropriate, this wouldn't necessarily lower the interest rates he cares about — mortgage rates, cost of credit and long-term borrowing. It's much more likely that ending the Fed's perceived independence (to say nothing of a big cut in the policy rate with inflation still above target) would push market-driven rates higher. Politically, attacking the Fed is all risk and no return. Installing a follower at the Fed looks almost reasonable compared to firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on patently specious grounds. The president accused Erika McEntarfer of rigging the July jobs figures released on Aug. 1, because they included unusually big downward revisions for May and June. It's hard to see how McEntarfer could have rigged the numbers even if she'd wanted to. Revisions happen, and they're apt to be bigger when sectoral demands for labor are shifting a lot (as they are now, thanks to tariffs and the crackdown on illegal workers) and when the agency is short of the resources it needs to gather data (as it is, thanks to the drive to cut government workers). For sure, the agency needs to improve its methods and keep the revisions as small as possible — goals made harder by the administration's dismantling of the panel of unpaid technical experts responsible for doing so. To repeat, I'm fairly sure a Democrat saboteur hasn't tunneled into the White House — but the true explanation evades me. As with attacking the Fed, firing the head of the BLS to install a follower whose independence will be questioned is all risk and no return. Planting the suspicion that employment and inflation numbers might be manipulated would add a further premium to long-term interest rates. And as such doubts accumulate, so does the risk of a 'Trump moment' for financial markets — with no short-term political benefit, beyond dominating the headlines, in exchange. On immigration, trade, the Fed and the integrity of official data, the White House seems determined to cast aside its successes and take risks that serve no purpose. To be sure, for as long as financial markets allow, the president will probably keep on winning — you know, because the Democrats. How such a great country wound up with such politicians, I cannot fathom. Look on their works, median voters, and despair.
