Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A Korean's viewpoint
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
yes I understand 1939. Actually what they were saying was that because of The Somme and VErdun nations would never ever put giant armies in the field again and that the world had learned its lessons after the slaughter of World War one. War had become so horribe that it was impossible that another like WWl would ever be fought again.


Contrary to popular opinion, that idea didn't hold much water outside of a few naive politicians journalists, and a naive public.

It was pretty clear that by 1934 the world was well on its way to war. You didn't have the massive interdependency and economic links to the degree that we have it today.The British Empire still spanned 2/3rds of the globe. Communist revolutions were spreading and you had powerful fascists states. Now, all major nations operate under the same ideology save one, China, which while not democratic, is now very much capitalist.

Who offers the great ideological challenge combined with a military threat capable of domination? Iran? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Please.


Quote:
we should all know that the reason that Russia, china, North Korea, Japan are all increasing the size of their armed forces is just for show.


Do you realize that even with this 'buildup', each nation save Russia is utterly unprepared to fight a global massive war? You do realize the Chinese don't have the logistical capability to invade Taiwan, much less Japan, right? What are they going to do? A million man swim?

North Korea? That 1960s Soviet-era dinosaur of a military? You do realize that SK+Japan/China/Russia would turn that military into something resembling the Iraqi Army in Desert Storm, right?

Russia invading China? Russia invading Korea? Japan? Russia didn't even go all out on Georgia, a former part of the USSR and your fantasy scenarios involve the invasion of Japan? A country that could rapidly nuclerize?

Quote:
The constitution of the P.R.C. calls for China expand to its former borders


The Constitution of Cuba probably calls for the 'Global Expansion of the Historical Struggle of the Proletariat', that doesn't mean Raul Castro is sending Communist legions all over the world to stir up revolutions.

You do realize that government statements are not always to be taken literally and at face value, right? Or do you believe every statement that comes out of the DPRK Ministry of Propaganda?

Quote:
ts former borders include a large part of India, all of korea and a large part of Siberia. yeah they have some interesting maps and they really piss off their neighbors


So China is going to throw away all of its economic advances over the past 30 years and everything it has worked for risk war with 2 declared nuclear powers and one nation under protection of a 3rd nuclear power's defense treaty, to get the most forbidding land in the world in the Himalayas, 75 million rebellious people and a massive refuge problem in Korea the Land of No Natural Resources, and Siberia?

Doesn't that seem a little, well, stupid? You do realize there is this thing called cost-benefit analysis. Risking nuclear war with India over the Himalayas? Really?

At least with Hitler he was going after things like the industrial base of the Rhineland and th major port of Danzig. The Japanese were eying the rubber and oil resources of SE Asia.

But yes, go on with your absurd fear-mongering scenarios about nuclear powers China and Russia fighting a massive war over Siberia. Whatever resources are to be gained, no one in China is dumb enough to fight a full on war in such a place.

Seriously, some people need to lay off the video games, pseudo-foreign policy analysis, Political Thriller novels, and inner fantasies involving millions of tanks and men storming across the border. Likely, these scenarios involve movie-like scenes of these tanks and millions of men all going at top speed, guns a blazing. Somehow the tanks and jeeps going 60 miles an hour can shoot perfectly, the guys with machine guns can somehow run 60 miles an hour for 3 miles and keep military order, and that this force just pops up out of nowhere and doesn't offer a juicy target. Oh and lets not forget that in this cinematic vision the fighter jets are 100 feet above the troops, going at the same 60 miles an hour, yet somehow not stalling while still looking fast as hell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PREEST



Joined: 20 Jan 2013

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it ironic considering America fought for South Korea's freedom. Had China had a say in matters, the entire peninsula would be communist (What a wonderful country North Korea is...)

In saying that, if you had the constant presence of a bigger power within the parameters of your own boarders, it is understandable that you might start to resent this.

However, ditch the US for China and see how that works out...

FTR, I'm not American.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
World Traveler



Joined: 29 May 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
aussieb wrote:
The Norks do have a couple of nukes ... more than makes up for other antiquated weaponry.


But they don't have a delivery system. Nukes are worthless unless you can get them over to the enemy side. All they have are bombers and any bombers taking off, would be detected and shot down before it reaches the border.

They do now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/world/asia/north-korea-may-have-nuclear-missile-capability-us-agency-says.html?smid=tw-bna

Also, I just saw this on cnn.com:
Quote:
it takes only three minutes for a North Korean plane to reach Seoul, and under a minute for artillery shells to hit.

How would all the planes (North Korea has a huge airforce) be detected, tracked, and shot down in such a short amount of time?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
javis



Joined: 28 Feb 2013

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

World Traveler wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
aussieb wrote:
The Norks do have a couple of nukes ... more than makes up for other antiquated weaponry.


But they don't have a delivery system. Nukes are worthless unless you can get them over to the enemy side. All they have are bombers and any bombers taking off, would be detected and shot down before it reaches the border.

They do now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/world/asia/north-korea-may-have-nuclear-missile-capability-us-agency-says.html?smid=tw-bna

Also, I just saw this on cnn.com:
Quote:
it takes only three minutes for a North Korean plane to reach Seoul, and under a minute for artillery shells to hit.

How would all the planes (North Korea has a huge airforce) be detected, tracked, and shot down in such a short amount of time?

They wouldn't just take off all at once like a swarm of bees. There are a limited number of airfields, and each has a limited capacity for planes taking off. It's like when everybody gets off the subway at a major transfer station and crowd the platform, but still have to stand in line to in up the escalator. On top of that, a plane has to be fueled up, preflighted, taxied to the runway before it can take off, and then it has to exit the airfield pattern and form up with it's wing men. Then it can finally turn south to go turn Seoul into a sea of fire.
So, if you consider all that, it's really not as simple as going three minutes south as the crow flies, and there would be plenty of time for ROK and US forces to react to a North Korean air incursion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atwood



Joined: 26 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

World Traveler wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
aussieb wrote:
The Norks do have a couple of nukes ... more than makes up for other antiquated weaponry.


But they don't have a delivery system. Nukes are worthless unless you can get them over to the enemy side. All they have are bombers and any bombers taking off, would be detected and shot down before it reaches the border.

They do now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/world/asia/north-korea-may-have-nuclear-missile-capability-us-agency-says.html?smid=tw-bna

Also, I just saw this on cnn.com:
Quote:
it takes only three minutes for a North Korean plane to reach Seoul, and under a minute for artillery shells to hit.

How would all the planes (North Korea has a huge airforce) be detected, tracked, and shot down in such a short amount of time?

Get Robert Downey Jr. back here pronto. Ironman could handle it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

javis wrote:
World Traveler wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
aussieb wrote:
The Norks do have a couple of nukes ... more than makes up for other antiquated weaponry.


But they don't have a delivery system. Nukes are worthless unless you can get them over to the enemy side. All they have are bombers and any bombers taking off, would be detected and shot down before it reaches the border.

They do now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/world/asia/north-korea-may-have-nuclear-missile-capability-us-agency-says.html?smid=tw-bna

Also, I just saw this on cnn.com:
Quote:
it takes only three minutes for a North Korean plane to reach Seoul, and under a minute for artillery shells to hit.

How would all the planes (North Korea has a huge airforce) be detected, tracked, and shot down in such a short amount of time?

They wouldn't just take off all at once like a swarm of bees. There are a limited number of airfields, and each has a limited capacity for planes taking off. It's like when everybody gets off the subway at a major transfer station and crowd the platform, but still have to stand in line to in up the escalator. On top of that, a plane has to be fueled up, preflighted, taxied to the runway before it can take off, and then it has to exit the airfield pattern and form up with it's wing men. Then it can finally turn south to go turn Seoul into a sea of fire.
So, if you consider all that, it's really not as simple as going three minutes south as the crow flies, and there would be plenty of time for ROK and US forces to react to a North Korean air incursion.


Lol. Can you imagine if the Dave's crowd was in charge of the CBO of WWII?

"As soon as you take off, head over to Berlin. Don't wait for the rest of the group to take off and get in formation. Just head over yourself. A steady stream of one aircraft after another will overwhelm the German air defenses and is the best counter to the Luftwaffe."

Don't they realize that there aren't 2,500 jets sitting around on 2 minute standby ready to blast off at a moments notice? Do they realize how taxing that is on man and machine?

Not to mention that at least 1/3rd of those planes might not even be able to carry missiles...

You do realize that that also means those airfields are only 3 minutes away from getting hit by ROK/US aircraft. Who do you give the edge to in penetration and striking? Who do you give the edge to in having advance warning about hostile aircraft and intelligence showing military preparations, NKorea, which has no spy satellite capability, or the US?

Again, the Dave's "One Way Road" of military analysis. Like somehow the Norks will operate with impunity while everyone just stands around and pathetically tries to defend themselves.

Quote:
They do now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/world/asia/north-korea-may-have-nuclear-missile-capability-us-agency-says.html?smid=tw-bna


Go back and re-read the article. They don't have the capability. They have the theory about how to build it, but lack the developments in all aspects of nuclear ballistic technology and development to carry it out. China has the knowhow to send a man to the moon. Doesn't mean its about to happen or that they have the thing built.

It's like having the blueprints without the machinery to fabricate what is necessary or the knowledge to deal with any problems along the way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
World Traveler



Joined: 29 May 2009

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
They don't have the capability.

Are you talking about striking the mainland U.S.? That's what Americans are most concerned about, and that distance is much further than the distance between the DMZ and Seoul. Guess what? No one knows for sure what nuclear capacity North Korea has, including you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
World Traveler



Joined: 29 May 2009

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Weigookin74 wrote:
The funny thing is, if America left tomorrow, would the Koreans be scared? I think they'd be living in fear of that nutjob up in Pyeongyang.

I just talked to an educated Korean (who graduated from a top university). She told me the pastor at her church strongly urged the congregation to pray America doesn't withdraw its forces. (Because the U.S. is in debt, Koreans are afraid this will happen.) This woman is concerned about the North Korean threat, and so are her relatives living in Seoul.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
le-paul



Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

World Traveler wrote:
Weigookin74 wrote:
The funny thing is, if America left tomorrow, would the Koreans be scared? I think they'd be living in fear of that nutjob up in Pyeongyang.

I just talked to an educated Korean (who graduated from a top university). She told me the pastor at her church strongly urged the congregation to pray America doesn't withdraw its forces. (Because the U.S. is in debt, Koreans are afraid this will happen.) This woman is concerned about the North Korean threat, and so are her relatives living in Seoul.


yeah, funny that. I remember talking to some educated people from south korea last year who all wanted the americans gone from their soil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

World Traveler wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
They don't have the capability.

Are you talking about striking the mainland U.S.? That's what Americans are most concerned about, and that distance is much further than the distance between the DMZ and Seoul. Guess what? No one knows for sure what nuclear capacity North Korea has, including you.


Yeah, I am referring to the mainland. Hitting the Aleutians doesn't count in my book. Maybe, maybe they can hit Seattle.

We can project their capability based on past rates of development in other countries and the tests they've been able to execute.

This whole "We have no idea what they're capable of" is used far to often to suggest that the North Koreans somehow have these secret, brilliant capabilities, stashed under some mountain. Sorry, but "We have no idea" works both ways, it could also mean they are less capable than we project or even that they are pretty close to where we project.

A couple things to remember- In order to use something militarily you have to test it out and then train with it. Putting your plutonium eggs on an untested basket is not a sound course. These tests and training exercises can be detected and monitored, and in the case of a nation like North Korea, frequently are.

Also, nations that are starving, with microscopic economies, and 50 year-old Soviet equipment, with a shortage of training hours, in part because the soldiers are apparently used for farming, suggests that if "We have no idea" is going to err, its going to err on the side of not quite what they are cracked up to be. Not, commandos exploding out of the ground like ants, fighters swarming air defenses like bees and missiles raining down on Chicago and Denver.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
World Traveler



Joined: 29 May 2009

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If they can hit Seattle, or maybe hit Seattle, as you put it, I'm pretty sure they can hit Seoul. (That was my point.)

The distance from NK to the US is so much further than the distance between NK and SK (right next to each other).

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2013/04/12/north-korean-missiles-an-inventory/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

World Traveler wrote:
If they can hit Seattle, or maybe hit Seattle, as you put it, I'm pretty sure they can hit Seoul. (That was my point.)

The distance from NK to the US is so much further than the distance between NK and SK (right next to each other).

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2013/04/12/north-korean-missiles-an-inventory/


The issue for nuking Seoul isn't just the range, its putting the entire system together and ensuring its accuracy, reliability, and yield.

To say nothing of the diplomatic consequences of using a nuclear weapon- Almost assured invasion by China, likely Russian participation as well, and war crimes trials for those involved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
World Traveler



Joined: 29 May 2009

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
South Korean military is "advanced".
Are we sure about this? From the guys that I've talked to that recently finished their service, "advanced" would not be the word they'd use to describe it.

Air Force is light years ahead. Navy is light years ahead...

The Navy is light years ahead? Is that true?

NK has 770 vessels compared to SK's 174. I thought based on sea skirmishes South Koreans were surprised by how well NK naval vessels could manuver and fight. (That's what I read on one source.) But I guess I could be wrong. What exactly is it about North Korea's navy that makes it so weak and inferior to South Korea's forces? (I guess I just don't agree with the term "light years ahead" for all aspects of military.)

Quote:
"North Korea maintains one of the world's largest submarine forces," said a defense official who asked not to be named. The official monitors the threat posed by potentially hostile naval forces.

Quote:
The Navy "is quite obsessed with North Korea and the Red Chinese. They are the navies that the U.S. is most likely to fight, and (their submarines) are not that easy to find," says John Pike, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a defense research group in Alexandria, Va.

Pike says there is a real danger that the tests will ratchet up North Korean anxiety and possibly cause a clash. "They are already pegged at 11 on a scale of 10," Pike says of the North Koreans.

"They are locked and loaded."


About this:
Steelrails wrote:
Seriously, KJI's force is not some Death Legion of Mordor. It is the Iraqi Army, circa 1991 without any of the benefit of combat experience and leaders that the Iraqis at least had.

...sorry, but it is a ridiculous statement.

The eight year war with Iran weakened the Iraq army significantly.

Quote:
The war cost both sides in lives and economic damage: half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers, as well as civilians, are believed to have died, with many more injured

Wikipedia said the economic cost to Iraq was more than $500 billion.

I saw an expert on PBS who said to think NK would be like Iraq would be "a grave mistake".

Iraq is desert. Weapons there are easy to spot. NK is forested and mountainous. Weapons there are not easy to spot.

The North Korean military is way stronger and way more dangerous than Iraq's was in 1991.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fermentation



Joined: 22 Jun 2009

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

World Traveler wrote:

The Navy is light years ahead? Is that true?

NK has 770 vessels compared to SK's 174. I thought based on sea skirmishes South Koreans were surprised by how well NK naval vessels could manuver and fight. (That's what I read on one source.) But I guess I could be wrong. What exactly is it about North Korea's navy that makes it so weak and inferior to South Korea's forces? (I guess I just don't agree with the term "light years ahead" for all aspects of military.)

Light years may be an exaggeration but the SK Navy is advanced compared to the NK's. The skirmishes you are thinking about are the two engagements near Yeongyeong. In those, the South inflicted much higher casualties. Many of our systems are computerized while they still need guys to turn cranks in order to turn turrets on their ships. Meanwhile, the South has Aegis class destroyers, which are some of the most advanced Naval weapon systems in existence. The North do outnumber the ROK Navy but most of those are patrol boats and submarines. The subs do pose a problem because they can be used to insert SF units and prevent ROK's offensive operations. But I don't think they have the type of navy that can support large-scale amphibious and ground operations.

About this:
Steelrails wrote:
Seriously, KJI's force is not some Death Legion of Mordor. It is the Iraqi Army, circa 1991 without any of the benefit of combat experience and leaders that the Iraqis at least had.


...sorry, but it is a ridiculous statement.

The eight year war with Iran weakened the Iraq army significantly.

I saw an expert on PBS who said to think NK would be like Iraq would be "a grave mistake".

Iraq is desert. Weapons there are easy to spot. NK is forested and mountainous. Weapons there are not easy to spot.

The North Korean military is way stronger and way more dangerous than Iraq's was in 1991.


The problem with making simple assessments like "The NK military is/was stronger than Iraq's" is that military forces are adapted to the type of war and terrain they are expected to fight in. The Iraqi military at the time also had more advanced Soviet tanks. That meant little not only because American weapons systems were technologically superior and had absolute air superiority, but the US also had a better command system and a brilliantly planned operation that crushed Iraqi forces from two sides.

The same type of prolonged air campaign that weakened Iraq probably won't work to the same effectiveness against North Korea but for the same reason their offensive won't be as effective against the South. Their armor formations won't be able to rush through ROK defensives because our terrain is just as mountainous and our positions are also heavily fortified.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Navy is light years ahead? Is that true?

NK has 770 vessels compared to SK's 174. I thought based on sea skirmishes South Koreans were surprised by how well NK naval vessels could manuver and fight. (That's what I read on one source.) But I guess I could be wrong. What exactly is it about North Korea's navy that makes it so weak and inferior to South Korea's forces? (I guess I just don't agree with the term "light years ahead" for all aspects of military.)


Stop looking at numbers, start looking at what vessels they are deploying. Also whatever number they have, divide that in half because their navies on both coasts have no ability to support each other.

I shouldn't say light years at all levels. At the top levels the ROK navy is light years ahead. But at the lower levels, green water forces, things are more equal. North Korea has nothing that can match ROK destroyers, SK submarines, or the new Incheon-class frigates coming out.

Yes, NKorea has a lot of subs, but most are either ancient Soviet models, or are midget submarines. The midget submarines can pose a danger, but more so in an ambush situation at the start of a conflict rather than a continuous one throughout a full-scale war. In the close, coastal waters along the maritime border midget subs can basically "drift" in silently and lie in ambush along a sea lane. Of course during wartime conditions this would be much more difficult to execute.

But again, North Korea has nothing to match the South's major surface combatants and its 214 submarines.

Quote:
...sorry, but it is a ridiculous statement.

The eight year war with Iran weakened the Iraq army significantly.


Well that it did, but you had to mix veteran with war-weary. It still possessed a force roughly comparable to North Korea's. One major difference being the quantity of artillery and the North Korean air-defense network and Iraq having a weaker Navy. The Air Force is pretty much the same once you throw out North Korea's 1950s-60s Soviet era aircraft which are little more than missile fodder.

This speaks more towards how weak the North Korean military is rather than how strong Saddam's was.

Quote:
Iraq is desert. Weapons there are easy to spot. NK is forested and mountainous. Weapons there are not easy to spot.

The North Korean military is way stronger and way more dangerous than Iraq's was in 1991.


That's true. There are limitations. However Iraq is still the closest match in terms of equipment, nation size, and likely level of training.

As for terrain, as fermentation pointed out, everything you mention also applies to the ROK and US forces.

Again, as I pointed out in other threads, this is an example of the Dave's "One-way road" military analysis style. You can't just treat those things as only applying to North Korea, you have to apply them to the South as well. "Anything could happen" Yes, that applies to the North and South. "Jet fighters could hit Seoul in only 3 minutes" Yes, but that means that North Korean airbases could be hit in only 3 minutes. "Mountainous terrain with defenses and bunkers". What does it suddenly become a flat prairie on the other side of the DMZ? Have the South Koreans spent the last 50 years not building a single bunker or defensive emplacement?

A good way to avoid this mistake is when you hear something like that, use the ol critical thinking skills and turn it around and see if it applies the other way as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 11 of 12

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International