|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| In the real world we know that they are a military with a bunch of 50s-70s era Soviet equipment with a few newer pieces mixed in, but those newer pieces are in low quantity. |
I think you are underestimating their millitary. North Korea sells millitary equiptment to many countries.
Did you know that out of the world's countries (roughly 200), less than 10 have nuclear weapons. We can say less than one out of twenty countries have the nuclear bomb.
The North Korean millitary does not totally suck, as some on this board suggest. The Cheonan was a huge ship (specializing in anti-submarine operations), and the Norks were able to sink it undetected.
The North Korean navy is a formidable threat, with hundreds of ships and (at the very least) dozens of submarines.
Who knows what they have up their sleeve. And maybe their technology really is old and broken, but if that is the case, weapons could go off accidentally, and the escalation that could follow could be disasterous.
| Quote: |
North Korea relies on asymmetric warfare techniques and unconventional weaponry to achieve parity against high-tech enemy forces. North Korea has developed a wide range of technologies towards this end, such as GPS jammers,[24] stealth paint to conceal ground targets,[25] midget submarines and human torpedoes[26] and a vast array of chemical and biological weapons.[27] The Korean People's Army also operates ZM-87 anti-personnel lasers, which are banned under the United Nations Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons.[28]
Since the 1980s, North Korea has also been actively developing its own cyber warfare capabilities, and as of 2011 has some 1,000 skilled military hackers.[29] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| It is not so simple to say which side would be victorious -North or South Korea. It's a meaningless argument. Even if the US pulled out, they would return if North Korea invaded. So, it couldn't happen, anyway. |
I wouldn't say its meaningless. People will use the argument to either justify or condemn the US presence. The US will undoubtedly comeback, but the entire goal of a North Korean offensive is to completely control the peninsula before the US and other allies can mobilize and intervene to either deter a US attack or to at least make it a harder fight. Which is why the NK insurgency argument holds no weight because as with Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam, insurgencies take a really long time to either beat or become victorious. And it is also because of this time requirement that they need committed political backup to keep it going.
| Quote: |
The South spends much more money on modern equipment than the North. That's true. Even if the North lost, South Korea would sustain a lot of damage. Not only that, the South would all of a sudden have to take care of millions of North Koreans. That's something no one mentions. What kind of victory would that be? Someone brought up Vietnam. The US was winning, but it was more of a phyrric victory, and the American people wouldn't support the war. The amount of damage the Viet Cong was doing to the American side was heavy, even though NVA's weapons weren't as good. There are too many unknowns. We do know it's quite probable, the South would sustain a lot of damage, and if it goes for a true victory and wins, it will suffer financially if it takes over the North. |
I think this is besides the point since we're talking about North Korea attacking South Korea, and the South deterring the North, not the other way around. Not that I don't agree with you concerning a South Korean takeover of the North.
I think the Vietnam comparison is irrelevant since I don't think we need to worry that South Korean support for the defense of South Korea would ever wane. I don't think Koreans are going to say, "Ok, we give up now. You can take our country." I also don't buy that the NVA had inferior weapons to the US. You must be talking about the Viet Cong. North Vietnam was being supplied by the USSR. In some cases they actually had more advanced weapon systems than the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| In the real world we know that they are a military with a bunch of 50s-70s era Soviet equipment with a few newer pieces mixed in, but those newer pieces are in low quantity. |
I think you are underestimating their millitary. North Korea sells millitary equiptment to many countries.
Did you know that out of the world's countries (roughly 200), less than 10 have nuclear weapons. We can say less than one out of twenty countries have the nuclear bomb.
The North Korean millitary does not totally suck, as some on this board suggest. The Cheonan was a huge ship (specializing in anti-submarine operations), and the Norks were able to sink it undetected.
The North Korean navy is a formidable threat, with hundreds of ships and (at the very least) dozens of submarines.
Who knows what they have up their sleeve. And maybe their technology really is old and broken, but if that is the case, weapons could go off accidentally, and the escalation that could follow could be disasterous.
| Quote: |
North Korea relies on asymmetric warfare techniques and unconventional weaponry to achieve parity against high-tech enemy forces. North Korea has developed a wide range of technologies towards this end, such as GPS jammers,[24] stealth paint to conceal ground targets,[25] midget submarines and human torpedoes[26] and a vast array of chemical and biological weapons.[27] The Korean People's Army also operates ZM-87 anti-personnel lasers, which are banned under the United Nations Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons.[28]
Since the 1980s, North Korea has also been actively developing its own cyber warfare capabilities, and as of 2011 has some 1,000 skilled military hackers.[29] |
|
Stop talking, just stop talking.
The North Korean Navy? Hundreds of ships...No, their naval strength is half that. Why? Because their navy on one coast can't support their navy on the other.
Oh yeah....
And those hundreds of ships include patrol craft and such, not exactly front line warships like a KDX.
The Cheonan was not operating under wartime conditions, those significantly affect the alertness level of the crew. Also it was not a huge ship, it was a corvette, one of the smallest of blue-water ships, barely blue-water.
Also, the submarines are old Soviet types, maybe they have a couple of newer Kilo-class or something, but mostly midget subs. Good for actions like blowing up a ship during peacetime, but limited in their wartime capability.
But again, you have to take their naval number and slash it in half because of the coasts. The ROK Navy can concentrate in any area it chooses. To say nothing of the fact that they would completely lack air superiority and that would make their navy like their air force- too terrified to even leave base.
| Quote: |
| I wouldn't say its meaningless. People will use the argument to either justify or condemn the US presence. The US will undoubtedly comeback, but the entire goal of a North Korean offensive is to completely control the peninsula before the US and other allies can mobilize and intervene to either deter a US attack or to at least make it a harder fight. Which is why the NK insurgency argument holds no weight because as with Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam, insurgencies take a really long time to either beat or become victorious. And it is also because of this time requirement that they need committed political backup to keep it going. |
+1
| Quote: |
I think this is besides the point since we're talking about North Korea attacking South Korea, and the South deterring the North, not the other way around. Not that I don't agree with you concerning a South Korean takeover of the North.
I think the Vietnam comparison is irrelevant since I don't think we need to worry that South Korean support for the defense of South Korea would ever wane. I don't think Koreans are going to say, "Ok, we give up now. You can take our country." I also don't buy that the NVA had inferior weapons to the US. You must be talking about the Viet Cong. North Vietnam was being supplied by the USSR. In some cases they actually had more advanced weapon systems than the US. |
+2
| Quote: |
| Americans were supposedly spoiled because of their ability to get hot food and showers to the front lines. Americans didn't know cold and hardship like the Chinese. But the POW ratio of both sides tells another story. Guess which side had more (and a higher ratio) of waving the white flag? Like I said before, a soldier knows what a simple meal of hot chow can do for morale |
This has held true time and time again in military history.
| Quote: |
| They do have some stuff that'll surprise you (Russian made UAVs, Su-27s, large numbers of hovercraft, entire airfields built inside freaking mountains, etc), |
Yeah, they'll always have a showpiece unit with modern stuff. I'm willing to be those units either A)Stay back as a reserve to protect KJI or B) Mysteriously refuse to obey orders/bug out to China/Fall under control of some Warlord. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajosshi
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: ajosshi.com
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: A Korean's viewpoint |
|
|
double, deleted.
Last edited by ajosshi on Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itistime
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a silly kid who has become 'enlightened'
during her vast, worldly experiences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nate1983
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:44 am Post subject: Re: A Korean's viewpoint |
|
|
| ajosshi wrote: |
Well, let's see.
An out-of-state student: access to free money (scholarships, grants, subsidized loans), access to private loans, and easily becomes a resident after year 2.
A foreign student: access to free pizza and soda at orientation. |
I kind of stopped following this, but foreign students are eligible for plenty of scholarships as well, and many are funded by their native country's government or corporations. I went to a private school, but my foreign college gf had a very nice diversity scholarship that I wouldn't have been eligible for, which came completely from our school's endowment fund. I've also attended two public graduate programs, and there was absolutely no difference in the US natives and the foreign students (who made up 50% of the class) with regard to fees or funding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajosshi
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: ajosshi.com
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: A Korean's viewpoint |
|
|
I was responding to your first comment.
| ajosshi wrote: |
| nate1983 wrote: |
| ajosshi wrote: |
| nate1983 wrote: |
| PeteJB wrote: |
| Foreign influence has had a history of not benefiting Korea. |
Then why would she travel thousands of miles and spend a boatload of money to be influenced by foreign education?
And talking about "her country" giving Americans jobs? At least that's the free market at work. Presumably, she is not working in my country, but reaping the benefits of its infrastructure and education system, both heavily supported by US taxpayer dollars.
Not getting any thing for free. Foreign students pay full price. Their fees partly offset fees charged to residents. Also, the "infrastructure" is paid by taxed spending. Foreigners spend just like any other citizen. They don't get jack for free. |
|
I'm guessing you're not American, because then you would know that U.S. education, even at nominally "private" schools, is heavily supported through state and federal tax money. And whose taxes are paying for the nice clean streets and policemen to keep her safe at night? Not hers. And you could argue that her place in that school is taking away a spot for us to educate one of our own.
I don't have any issue with our government using its money to support our foreign guests - what I don't like is the double standard this girl applies, as in it's okay for her to come over here and study in these nice schools, but she then criticizes people actually making a contribution to Korean society are "relying on her country."
| Quote: |
The girl is 17. The U.S. Army private is 21. |
I had read somewhere the girl was 18 or, and I remembered the guy was 20 or 21. Perhaps the girl's Korean age was given, as I first read a Korean article about it - if you say she was 17, I'll take your word for it, and I'll admit it makes it more serious. |
I'm a U.S. citizen and familiar with how schools work. I used to teach graduate students at an engineering school. I also concentrated on taxation during law school, so I'm familiar with the concept.
Let's take UCs, for example. A California resident would pay about 12. A foreigner would pay about 35. That's about triple the resident tuition. Yes, you can argue that the foreigner is taking a spot away, but the opposite can also be true. Because of the foreigner, a school has the needed funds to accommodate more of their residents.
Street sweepers? A city's DOT would derive their funding from several sources. They would include general funds, state and federal subsidies from fuel taxes, state registration fees, and sales and business taxes. If a foreign student drives (registration fees, sales tax on vehicle, fuel taxes, etc.), then they are a contributor.
Police protection? That's paid by property taxes, sales tax, and any special assessments by the city, a.k.a., more taxes. Assuming that foreign students live any place under a roof, they directly or indirectly pay property taxes. They also pay sales tax and contribute to the economy by buying things needed to live. |
| Quote: |
Foreigners at UCs pay exactly the same as I would, and there is still a difference to be made up. Even if every student paid full ticket price, that still wouldn't cover it, and this difference comes from government sources. I had TA-ships and fellowships in grad school, and without exception similarly qualified foreigners were given the same funding. I don't know who this girl is, but she very well could be included in that group, which means she would be receiving substantial assistance. And even if she is not, part of her cohort is, and as I'm sure you know, foreigners are over-represented in [funded] graduate programs compared to undergrad. Again, I have absolutely no issues with these policies, but it's the irony of her position that it's "justifiable for Koreans to be wary of foreigners because [blah blah blah]," yet she plops herself down as a foreigner over in the states with no qualms about it at all.
I don't know where you got street-sweeper from; besides the fact that most foreign students don't drive cars, I was referring to the incredible cost needed to build and maintain our whole infrastructure, rather than some guy picking up cigarette butts. |
| ajosshi wrote: |
Here's the tuition schedule for UCLA: http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/budget.htm#4 Foreign students pay several times more than residents.
I know of very few foreign students that don't drive. I've lived in SoCal for most of my life. It would be very difficult to have a normal life without a car. Sure, it can be done, but one would just be existing, not living. Think inmate life.
Public transpo in SoCal sucks. Just think of Seoul, but take away 99.9999% of the cabs, 90% of the buses and subways, then spread everything out by 20 times. Unless one lives in a ghetto (or lives the life of an inmate on campus), most shops are 5 to 10 minutes by car. |
| northway wrote: |
| I think his point was that foreigners and out of state residents are looked at in exactly the same light. |
| nate1983 wrote: |
| ajosshi wrote: |
Well, let's see.
An out-of-state student: access to free money (scholarships, grants, subsidized loans), access to private loans, and easily becomes a resident after year 2.
A foreign student: access to free pizza and soda at orientation. |
I kind of stopped following this, but foreign students are eligible for plenty of scholarships as well, and many are funded by their native country's government or corporations. I went to a private school, but my foreign college gf had a very nice diversity scholarship that I wouldn't have been eligible for, which came completely from our school's endowment fund. I've also attended two public graduate programs, and there was absolutely no difference in the US natives and the foreign students (who made up 50% of the class) with regard to fees or funding. |
If foreign students are bringing their own funding, it�s no burden on the U.S. taxpayers. They are in part supporting the school and country. I�m also talking your average foreign student, not some one-off program. For example, I got a driver/assistant for my Master�s in another country that was funded by an endowment. Two other students got the same, but this was not available to all U. S. students.
If a private school wants to spend a portion of their endowment on diversity scholarships, I�m all for it. It�s their money. It is no burden on the U. S. taxpayers. When donors give, many have specific wants. I�m certain that your school and others abide by their wishes.
I don�t know where you went to grad school, so I cannot comment. I can comment that most of the grad students from other countries earned a full-ride where I taught. On average, they were as qualified as the next U. S. student, if not more so. Technically and academically, they were very capable. We had students from Africa that walked miles to school, then came home and studied by candle light in their huts. The African students taught us about power distribution (localized). Americans practice the exact opposite (extremely wasteful). We also had students from Nordic countries with practical experience and knowledge of geothermal heating and cooling and students from Asia that were very knowledgeable with photo voltaic systems. On average, I�d say that the foreign students (grad) gave more than what they got. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:15 am Post subject: Re: A Korean's viewpoint |
|
|
| PeteJB wrote: |
Another issue Dave brought up is that South Korean is racist. Of course, it is natural to think that countries with a greater level of diversity will have more problems with racism. However, I was shocked when Josh showed me his text book. In the book it said that Korea was more likely than any other country to not want to live next to a member of another race or foreign nationality. I do believe it is important to take the context of Korean history into account when making the statement. For centuries Korea had been invaded by Japan and China. Korea's two lovely neighbors seemed to take turns at trying to rule and suppress the Korean people and our culture. I believe Korean's developed a mentality of taking care of themselves and pushing others out to preserve our own identity as a people that has carried with the population throughout generations. It could even be argued that S. Korea is still under foreign influence today with the presence of the US Military and pressure from the American government to conform to Western Politics. Unfortunately young men in uniform don't always behave with the highest degrees of civility and when they commit crimes in Korea, against Koreans they can retreat to their base where local Korean authorities aren't able to interrogate or confront the soldiers about the accusations. The soldiers are essentially given a free pass to behave poorly IF they can make it back to the base before they are caught. This causes an increased strain on the Korean mindset and being able to trust foreigners, not to mention the majority of foreigners who have been to Korea in the past have tried to occupy and colonize the country. Koreans feel a need to stick together to survive. Foreign influence has had a history of not benefiting Korea. |
How does that explain why racism in Korea seems to be more directed against people of dark skin than white people? I don't think that Korea has a history of being oppressed by people from India or Africa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1. It is my understanding that North Korea has enough mortars to take out the city of Seoul in one hours time. North Korea would have no reason to march across the DMZ until South Korea was sufficiently softened up.) If North Korea were to attack South Korea, it would be imperative to take out those mortars as quickly as possible. I would think knowing that the U.S. was willing to wipe North Korea off the map if that happened would at least make North Korea think twice about it and it would probably give the South Korean government some comfort that they would not have to go it alone. |
It is my understanding that you don't even know what a mortar is if you made a statement like that.
Go read up on what a mortar is first and then join the military discussion...
| Quote: |
| With the North Korean "bugbear," standing between South Korea and China, it is going to be very difficult for South Korea and China to be more than simple friends. And, lets not forget all those Chinese textbooks that claim the Beakchae Kingdom was really Chinese and that China has a claim on Korea. I think South Korea has a lot to fear from China, especially if South Korea did not have the U.S. to balance power in the region. As the blog said, South Korea has long been a victim of the larger regional powers - China and Japan. |
It shouldn't amaze me but it still does, how many people out their view the world in some sort of Napoleon to Cold War prism (which I would postulate constitutes one era in military thinking, though to some extent it was brewing since Westphalia) and not have realized how much things have changed.
For China to march over the DMZ with a million men would throw away everything it has worked towards since Deng.
China has Xinjian, Tibet, Taiwan, the Spratley's, etc. to worry about before it even thinks about invading Korea.
If the Chinese do invade it will be with something like "Chengdu Steel" or "Wei Mobile Communications". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Stop talking, just stop talking. |
My Korean friend told me:
If the United States withdrew its military forces from Korea, the mandatory military service for all South Korean males would be increased from one and a half years to five years.
I therefore concluded that North Korea poses some sort of threat.
Let me ask you Steelrails:
If the United States military left Korea, do you think the length of mandatory military service in South Korea would increase? By what amount?
Heck, if North Korea was a joke militarily, there wouldn't be compulsory military service at all in South Korea.
US admiral says he worries most about NKorea
| Quote: |
| (AP) HONG KONG � A senior U.S. Navy commander said Wednesday he worries much more about North Korea than about other Asian countries, including rising military power China. |
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501712_162-57321148/us-admiral-says-he-worries-most-about-nkorea/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Stop talking, just stop talking. |
My Korean friend told me:
If the United States withdrew its military forces from Korea, the mandatory military service for all South Korean males would be increased from one and a half years to five years.
I therefore concluded that North Korea poses some sort of threat.
Let me ask you Steelrails:
If the United States military left Korea, do you think the length of mandatory military service in South Korea would increase? By what amount?
Heck, if North Korea was a joke militarily, there wouldn't be compulsory military service at all in South Korea.
US admiral says he worries most about NKorea
| Quote: |
| (AP) HONG KONG � A senior U.S. Navy commander said Wednesday he worries much more about North Korea than about other Asian countries, including rising military power China. |
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501712_162-57321148/us-admiral-says-he-worries-most-about-nkorea/ |
For one, I don't think that the mandatory military service would be increased to 5 years, that is way to long and would hurt economic development. Now, they might require a greater length of stay in the reserves, but the economy has to keep on ticking.
If you look at the North Korean Armed Forces capabilities you would realize that they are not a threat to the survival of the South Korean nation. However the South Korean Armed Forces are indeed a threat to the survival of the North Korean nation.
KJI would trade his army for SK's in a heartbeat.
As for the Admiral, it seems he's saying NK's navy is a threat to stability because of the 'antics' it engages in, which lead to political and diplomatic rows, not that they are a significant threat. The Nork Navy would be fish food in any conflict.
Also be skeptical of Generals/Admirals who make claims about "big threats". Usually they do this as part of the ongoing budget battles that plague the DoD. You don't get promoted much for battlefield success these days, its more about protecting your forces budgets and implementing government programs. It's about telling busy Congressman about whatever techno-gobbledygook you need and getting their eyes to glaze over and say "Will you build it in my district?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Stop talking, just stop talking. |
My Korean friend told me:
If the United States withdrew its military forces from Korea, the mandatory military service for all South Korean males would be increased from one and a half years to five years.
I therefore concluded that North Korea poses some sort of threat.
Let me ask you Steelrails:
If the United States military left Korea, do you think the length of mandatory military service in South Korea would increase? By what amount?
Heck, if North Korea was a joke militarily, there wouldn't be compulsory military service at all in South Korea.
US admiral says he worries most about NKorea
| Quote: |
| (AP) HONG KONG � A senior U.S. Navy commander said Wednesday he worries much more about North Korea than about other Asian countries, including rising military power China. |
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501712_162-57321148/us-admiral-says-he-worries-most-about-nkorea/ |
For one, I don't think that the mandatory military service would be increased to 5 years, that is way to long and would hurt economic development. Now, they might require a greater length of stay in the reserves, but the economy has to keep on ticking.
If you look at the North Korean Armed Forces capabilities you would realize that they are not a threat to the survival of the South Korean nation. However the South Korean Armed Forces are indeed a threat to the survival of the North Korean nation.
KJI would trade his army for SK's in a heartbeat.
As for the Admiral, it seems he's saying NK's navy is a threat to stability because of the 'antics' it engages in, which lead to political and diplomatic rows, not that they are a significant threat. The Nork Navy would be fish food in any conflict.
Also be skeptical of Generals/Admirals who make claims about "big threats". Usually they do this as part of the ongoing budget battles that plague the DoD. You don't get promoted much for battlefield success these days, its more about protecting your forces budgets and implementing government programs. It's about telling busy Congressman about whatever techno-gobbledygook you need and getting their eyes to glaze over and say "Will you build it in my district?" |
Now hoooold it right there, mister, I think yous be giving people the wrong impression about our great union of the 50 states. Do u know how many of our young men gave their lives so's that u could type away what ever tickles your fancy in a leisurous manner?  ...well I give you your props on this one, you've been able to scrape away propaganda plaque and get to the heart of the matter, which is a whole lotta money spewing outta the "Commie threat needs more arms" cash cow...brilliantly designed plan if you're in on the dirty money...only what can u do with a thimble-sized egg shell heart when u enter your final days?...can't buy off that one, genius, and ya can't take yer cash beyond the grave, either. And if you think some dark force is going to reward u for messing people up, you're in for a rather unpleasant surprise.
Better to die proud that you tried to actually help folks rather than hoodwink them. Jokes on u, useless elite profiteer bastards  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| China has Xinjian, Tibet, Taiwan, the Spratley's, etc. to worry about before it even thinks about invading Korea. |
Right. China has never really had any aspirations to grab Korea. If they had they could have done so a long time ago.
Chinese troops marched over the Yalu in 1950 to protect NK.. not to invade the Korean peninsula.
| Quote: |
| If you look at the North Korean Armed Forces capabilities you would realize that they are not a threat to the survival of the South Korean nation. However the South Korean Armed Forces are indeed a threat to the survival of the North Korean nation. |
Correct, the situation is something of a reversal of what it was 60 years ago.
In 1953 NK forces were well trained, euipped and already battle hardened.
SK forces were pitifully inexperienced and inept by comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Reggie wrote: |
| fermentation wrote: |
| By the way, people who keep brining up Vietnam and Afghanistan need to study their military history before making comparisons to the NK situation. |
Studying theirs isn't as important as studying ours.
Our military got pushed halfway down the Korean peninsula the last time. It lost in Vietnam. Our navy got routed in two hours by the Israelis in 1967. Our Marine Corps lost to a single Islamic soldier in Lebanon in 1983. Our soldiers left Somalia after some got dragged dead through the streets of Mogadishu. The Pentagon sold the war in Iraq by saying it would last just a few weeks in 2003, but some more American soldiers got killed just the other day in 2011. The war in Afghanistan was supposed to be a cakewalk against men with no real equipment, but it just entered its second decade the other day.
|
Our military utterly routed the Iraqi military in 1991. The British were able to defeat the Argentinians. The Israelis smashed "million men with AKs and third-rate Soviet equipment" armies time after time. |
How well have the Americans, the British, and the Israelis fared in their most recent wars? All three have fared poorly against opponents who have had vastly inferior equipment. Besides, I think you'll be disappointed if you think the Israelis will show up to Korea to fight in a civil war here. You're not being realistic.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Again, would you really take the NK Army over the SK one in a fight? |
I think North Korea's infantry would be better than anyone else's because of the toughness factor. Sometimes, that's enough. Our planes and tanks haven't produced a victory in Afghanistan or Iraq. Israel's tanks and air force couldn't save its national military from losing to a militia in 2006.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Do you really think the North is dealing from a position of strength or is it in fact desperation? |
The "strong" militaries of the USA, South Korea, Great Britain, and many other countries went into Afghanistan with a world of confidence. The Taliban have been fighting from a position of desperation for over a decade now.
In conclusion, I believe the war would be a lot harder and last a lot longer than a lot of people would expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't agree with some of the stuff she says however, I will say I am impressed. Her 18 y.o. counterpart in Korea couldn't do much more than parrot some things they heard on the news or what their father says over dinner.
I consider her age and life experience in her views. I know my ideology is not the same as it was when I was 18 and if you are all honest you'd say the same. Not excusing her but I think its very likely in 5 - 10 years she would not think or write the same. I also think her being in America, opened to all kinds of views, seeing how freely Americans express political and social thought has influenced her. I doubt she'd be able to write those same topics had she gone to one of the S.K.Y. universities.
All that said, I'll offer my own opinions on some the things she said. First, I think America should pull its military from S. Korea. Its a selfish reason. I think we have spent way too much money putting forces around the globe. I don't think it will be an invitation for the north to invade. I have very little concern they would. As much as they are portrayed as crazy or specifically their leader, if he was as crazy as his reputation they'd have invaded long ago. They are crazy as a fox. Every act is well thought out as to what they want to accomplish. The Chinese don't want them to invade and NK would not without their blessing. Furthermore, they know America will react militarily. That's a given. There is no way for a variety of reasons. First is our relationship with SK. If we are willing to go to Iraq and other locales where we don't have much of a relationship, we would certainly do more than force UN resolutions condeming an invasion. NK knows this. An invasion will end the leadership there. We still have bases in Japan and are already in Asia so its not as if we are gone. Furthermore the LAST thing China wants is a war involving American troops so close to its border. They want the opposite. They want America to leave Asia militarily so why sanction an act that would invite it to be more involved? Makes no sense. Lastly America has a significant Korean-American population and politically they would have a strong voice. They'd insist on it and the press would be for it as well.
As for choosing between America and China, frankly, were I a nation I'd hate to have either. I love America. Its my home but I also know we often get involved with countries influenced not by logic, reason and good policy but by whatever companies and industries see as an economic market in that country.
She is showing the naivity of youth to think that China wouldn't be far worse than America. The older, and often wiser heads in SK know tihs. China is now a bigger trading partner than America anyways. The choice has been made economically already to some extent. There are no benevolent super powers. No big brother countries who have that reassuring arm around its smaller brother. Its always patronizing at best and overt bullying and control in its worse form. Canada and Mexico have that relationship with America and they are not exactly complimentary of us. Name a country that China is close to and sees it as some nice big brother? North Korea? Pakistan to some extent? Tibet? China will be and is a bully. Its using its power even now to make some outlandish claims such as potential oil reserves in the seas and islands near the Phillipines.
She would also be reminded that its her country that advertises and asks so many Americans to come there to teach. Its not Americans that are knocking down their doors to work in Korea as english teachers but koreans that practically beg us to and often use lying recruiters to entice us there.
I can certainly understand not liking when others complain about your country. I don't like to hear it from foreigners enjoying life in America as well. However, she glosses over Korean society's prejudices. They are racist. America has racism as well but at least we have an open and frank discussion about it. Koreans do not. They sometimes use the excuse of being invaded by China and Japan as an excuse to be racist against westerners. Its a cop out.
I did fiind her enlightening in that after seeing so many koreans her own age who don't have a clue at least she has an interest and a knowledge (albeit a little skewed in my opinion) about the issues of the day. I am not as offended by her as I am that she is naive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
