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, 4, 5 ... 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
Seoulman69



Joined: 14 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
1)The record of ROK Army/Marine performance in Vietnam is quite good. The SKs excelled at COIN operations in Vietnam, precisely the type of operations they would have to carry out in an 'anti-Taliban' operation.

I would gladly have my SK troops trained by the officers and NCOs of the Vietnam era. Combat experience is combat experience. To add to that you have SKs limited involvement in Afghanistan engaging in, yes, COIN and nation-building operations.


North Korea fought with the North Vietnamese. I'd rather have my troops trained by the side who won.
As for SKs involvement in Afghanistan, the less said about that tragic mess the better. Using that as some kind of endorsement of SK's military prowess seems foolish.

The rest of your post seemed to be gibberish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
World Traveler



Joined: 29 May 2009

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
North Korea is the most militarized country in the world today,[4] having the fourth largest army in the world, at about 1,106,000 armed personnel, with about 20% of men ages 17–54 in the regular armed forces.[5] Military service of up to 10 years is mandatory for most males. It also has a reserve force comprising 8,200,000 personnel. It operates an enormous network of military facilities scattered around the country, a large weapons production basis, a dense air defense system, the third largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world,[6] and includes the world's largest Special Forces contingent (numbering 180,000 men).[7] While the aging equipment,[8] deriving from the economic plight of the country, is seen as major defect of the North Korean military capability, it is nevertheless regarded as a significant threat due to its size and proximity to major civilian areas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army

Quote:
North Korean missiles can serve to deliver various types of warheads, including WMD. It is possible that up to 3 Rodong-1 missiles are fitted with nuclear warheads.[21] In a similar manner to the initial Chinese nuclear doctrine, nuclear weapons are being stored separately, and would only be mounted on missiles after an order of the commander-in-chief (Kim Jong-il). Despite the claims by numerous media that North Korea has not yet created nuclear warheads small enough to be fit in a missile, reports surfaced in April 2009, according to which North Korea has miniaturized warheads, capable of being mounted on its missiles.[22] The most suitable nuclear weapons delivery system is the Rodong-1, which has been successfully tested many times.


Quote:
Despite the general fuel and ammunition shortages for training, it is estimated that the wartime strategic reserves of food for the army are sufficient to feed the regular troops for 500 days, while fuel and ammunition - amounting to 1.5 million and 1.7 million tonnes respectively - are sufficient to wage a full-scale war for 100 days.[30]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seoulman69 wrote:
Quote:
1)The record of ROK Army/Marine performance in Vietnam is quite good. The SKs excelled at COIN operations in Vietnam, precisely the type of operations they would have to carry out in an 'anti-Taliban' operation.

I would gladly have my SK troops trained by the officers and NCOs of the Vietnam era. Combat experience is combat experience. To add to that you have SKs limited involvement in Afghanistan engaging in, yes, COIN and nation-building operations.


North Korea fought with the North Vietnamese. I'd rather have my troops trained by the side who won.
As for SKs involvement in Afghanistan, the less said about that tragic mess the better. Using that as some kind of endorsement of SK's military prowess seems foolish.

The rest of your post seemed to be gibberish.


North Korea sent a few fighter pilots.

South Korea sent over 300,000 troops total to the Vietnam War.

Apples and Oranges.

Please, enlighten us on your analysis of SK vs NK combat performance in the Vietnam War. Please share your in depth analysis. Let us hear your expertise on War.

You say "The side that won"

I say "The side that demonstrated a skill at conducting COIN operations." Do you have any knowldege whatsoever of SKs record int he Vietnam War? Please do share it. Please share the analysis of SK COIN operations and the tendency of NVA/VC guerrillas to operate in the area that was under the SK zone of control.

And please, lets here you talk about the capabilities of NK weapons systems.

Please, do lay it all out here on Dave's. Prove that you have the slightest clue that you know what you are talking about.

Yes, the "invincible" NK Army. The one that hasn't invaded in over 60 years.

No, they can't possibly be the equivalent of Saddam circa 1991, no, they have Zombie Legions and Nukes and Tunnels and 1,000,000 men with jeeps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

World Traveler wrote:
Quote:
North Korea is the most militarized country in the world today,[4] having the fourth largest army in the world, at about 1,106,000 armed personnel, with about 20% of men ages 17–54 in the regular armed forces.[5] Military service of up to 10 years is mandatory for most males. It also has a reserve force comprising 8,200,000 personnel. It operates an enormous network of military facilities scattered around the country, a large weapons production basis, a dense air defense system, the third largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world,[6] and includes the world's largest Special Forces contingent (numbering 180,000 men).[7] While the aging equipment,[8] deriving from the economic plight of the country, is seen as major defect of the North Korean military capability, it is nevertheless regarded as a significant threat due to its size and proximity to major civilian areas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army

Quote:
North Korean missiles can serve to deliver various types of warheads, including WMD. It is possible that up to 3 Rodong-1 missiles are fitted with nuclear warheads.[21] In a similar manner to the initial Chinese nuclear doctrine, nuclear weapons are being stored separately, and would only be mounted on missiles after an order of the commander-in-chief (Kim Jong-il). Despite the claims by numerous media that North Korea has not yet created nuclear warheads small enough to be fit in a missile, reports surfaced in April 2009, according to which North Korea has miniaturized warheads, capable of being mounted on its missiles.[22] The most suitable nuclear weapons delivery system is the Rodong-1, which has been successfully tested many times.


Quote:
Despite the general fuel and ammunition shortages for training, it is estimated that the wartime strategic reserves of food for the army are sufficient to feed the regular troops for 500 days, while fuel and ammunition - amounting to 1.5 million and 1.7 million tonnes respectively - are sufficient to wage a full-scale war for 100 days.[30]


A little wiki is a dangerous thing.

Please enlighten us on how NK would conduct a war against SK. Specific orders.

Explain it from Commander in Chief of NK Forces, to Defense Ministry head, to Army Commanders, to Corps Commanders, to Division Commanders and so on, Lay out the orders for logistics and planning.

Now, yes, it possess capability. But Saddam in 91 could have the same things said about him, substituting Chemical for nuclear.

How would it utilize those "100 day reserves"? How would it bring them to its troops?

Are those its actual capabilities or are those the capabilities given by DOD funding hawks given to bleary eyed congressman for more money?

SCUDs? (That is what a RoDong-1 is) A glorified SCUD? Seriously? What would be the blast and fallout radius? What is its delivery range? Please enlighten me as to how many warheads they are likely to deploy and as to what scenarios they are likely to deploy them. Please explain to me the political and diplomatic consequences of deploying nuclear warheads.

So you honestly expect the NORKs to throw their full "million man wave" on the DMZ? Are those million men all combat infantry? Would they keep a reserve? Would they guard the border with China? Would they keep a reserve to deal with any amphibious invasion in its rear, ALA Incheon? Please enlighten us on the recent record of SCUD type weapons in war. Please show the recent war record of a 70s era Soviet equipped force engaging a modern Western-equipped armed force in a conventional land battle.

Yes, do enlighten us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:


Fair enough Cap'N.

The North WOULD be able to stand up to the North in a defensive war.

And as is clear from the record, I agree that the claim that the North would switch sides is questionable at best.

But I think the essence of the comparison between Nork and SK combat capabilities favors the assessment that the SKs would hold a significant if not decisive advantage.


Yeah, I don't think that the DPRK would win a war... but it'd be far closer than if he US was involved.

I don't think it'd be a case of spears against tanks - and that's how I felt the OP's article made it sound.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Corea wrote:
Steelrails wrote:


Fair enough Cap'N.

The North WOULD be able to stand up to the South in a defensive war.

And as is clear from the record, I agree that the claim that the North would switch sides is questionable at best.

But I think the essence of the comparison between Nork and SK combat capabilities favors the assessment that the SKs would hold a significant if not decisive advantage.


Yeah, I don't think that the DPRK would win a war... but it'd be far closer than if he US was involved.

I don't think it'd be a case of spears against tanks - and that's how I felt the OP's article made it sound.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
morrisonhotel



Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:


Seriously, where is mc_jc, rest his soul. For all the hate he got on this forum, anyone with half a clue about military operations could realize that he knew what he was talking about.


Given that he logged on to another Korean forum after he 'died', I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that he's still on here posting under a different name.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seoulman69



Joined: 14 Dec 2009

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Please, do lay it all out here on Dave's. Prove that you have the slightest clue that you know what you are talking about.

Yes, the "invincible" NK Army. The one that hasn't invaded in over 60 years.

No, they can't possibly be the equivalent of Saddam circa 1991, no, they have Zombie Legions and Nukes and Tunnels and 1,000,000 men with jeeps.


Your rants of hyperbolic nonsense are non stop.

Here are the facts:
The US and her allies lost the Vietnam war against a weaker side.
No-one knows what kind of arsenal NK has.
NK will never invade South Korea because it would be suicide. I mentioned this in an earlier post. You're not reading what i'm posting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Greenman



Joined: 08 Feb 2010

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NK is nothing. SK spends triple ,on military alone, than NK ENTIRE budget.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Sangkeun-Lee/3333

They simply do not have the capability to nuke anyone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/uk-korea-north-nuclear-idUKTRE70U1O920110131


Seriously, stop watching FOX news.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adventurer



Joined: 28 Jan 2006

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greenman wrote:
NK is nothing. SK spends triple ,on military alone, than NK ENTIRE budget.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Sangkeun-Lee/3333

They simply do not have the capability to nuke anyone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/uk-korea-north-nuclear-idUKTRE70U1O920110131


Seriously, stop watching FOX news.


The North Vietnamese spent much less money on weapons than America and didn't have the kind of money America had, but in the end, America withdrew even though it was winning. Even if North Korea doesn't beat South Korea, the damage could be pretty serious. I don't think North Korea would want to take the risk and invade South Korea. North Korea needs South Korea. It doesn't want to invade. North Korea recently met with the Russians for business. It's trying to find different ways to get more money. North Korea wants a new president in South Korea who will try to be more like President Ro. That's one reason the North is hostile.

Listen to this:

http://dissentradio.com/radio/11_10_05_feffer.mp3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Floating World



Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just tell the SK soldiers that the norks are saying that NK ramyeon is much spicer than SK jin ramyeon. Then watch the wrath of fury unfurl.

Very Happy


Last edited by The Floating World on Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Greenman



Joined: 08 Feb 2010

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good points and we are on the same page.

Why did America withdraw from Vietnam though? Poor public opinion driven by the Illegal bombings in Laos and Cambodia masterminded by the asshat Kissinger? Different situation and cant really be compared.

Peace
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vaticanhotline



Joined: 18 Jun 2009
Location: in the most decent sometimes sun

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if anyone's read this article by John Feffer; "The End of America's Pacific Century" (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175449/tomgram%3A_john_feffer%2C_the_end_of_america%27s_pacific_century/), but it's quite a good analysis of he current (and future) geopolitical situation in Asia. What's particularly interesting is this:

"Even if the opposition party doesn't sweep the conservatives out of power in the 2012 elections, South Korea will likely abandon Lee's tough-guy approach. In September, his likely successor as the ruling party candidate in 2012, Park Geun-Hye, openly criticized Lee’s approach in an article in Foreign Affairs that called instead for "trustpolitik."

"One project Park singled out for mention is an inter-Korean railroad line that would "perhaps transform the Korean Peninsula into a conduit for regional trade." That's an understatement. Restoring the line and hooking it up to Russia’s Trans-Siberian Railroad would connect the Korean peninsula to Europe, reduce the shipment time of goods from one end of Eurasia to the other by about two weeks, and save South Korea up to $34 to $50 per ton in shipping costs. Meanwhile, the natural gas pipeline, which South Korea approved at the end of September, could reduce its gas costs by as much as 30%. For the world's second largest natural gas importer, this would be a major savings."

And this:

"Key members of Congress like Senators John McCain and Carl Levin have already signaled their anxiety about the high price tag of a planned “strategic realignment” in Asia that involves, among other things, an expansion of the U.S. military base in Guam and an upgrading of facilities in Okinawa. In response to a question about potential military cuts, new Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has confirmed that reducing U.S. troops and bases overseas is "on the table.""

He also highlights in the article that North and South Korea continue to co-operate in the Kaesong joint industrial park project despite the sinking of the Cheonan and the shelling of Yeongpyeong, and that South Korea has agreed a deal with Russia to build a natural gas pipeline that will cross North Korea (alluded to in the first quotation). This will have the effect, he argues, of strengthening ties between the two countries and of lessening South Korea's dependence on Middle Eastern (read American) oil.

The writer is self-conscious enough to include caveats in his argument, but some people (such as Noam Chomsky) seem to think that America is no longer the economic and military colossus it once was, and that the unipolarity of the late-twentieth century is being eroded (http://chomsky.info/articles/20110824.htm). Chomsky doesn't mention Korea or Asia specifically in this article; he's mostly concerned with (a) the history of America's involvement in maintaining its position as the pre-eminent global power, and how that has been less successful than certain branches of the media would have you believe; and (b) (I'll just quote the man himself here): "that American decline is in no small measure self-inflicted. The comic opera in Washington this summer, which disgusts the country (a large majority think that Congress should just be disbanded) and bewilders the world, has few analogues in the annals of parliamentary democracy. The spectacle is even coming to frighten the sponsors of the charade. Corporate power is now concerned that the extremists they helped put in office in Congress may choose to bring down the edifice on which their own wealth and privilege relies".

In neither article is military power a big deal, and I would imagine there are reasons for this; (1) It would probably be the last resort of any country, particularly America, which is already embroiled in two costly international wars, and (2) It would serve no purpose other than to destroy a large part of Asia's developing infrastructure, which is essential to global economic recovery. That's conjecture on my part, obviously, and I wouldn't normally include it, but this thread, although interesting, is developing a "my laser-guided missile is better than yours" kind of flavour, which is of little relevance to what is really happening politically, which, aside from arguing over the significance of what a teenage exchange student writes on the internet, is what I assume this thread is about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
fermentation



Joined: 22 Jun 2009

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do we really need such hostility over a discussion that's ultimately over some stupid college girl's blog? I know its the internet but man some of you guys make it seem we're discussing life and death.

Captain Corea wrote:
1. The problems with words like using 'Advanced' is that we are comparing it to different things. Are the ROK's forces 'advanced' compared to North Korea's? Sure, in most ways. Are they 'Advanced' in general terms? Well, and someone who just ini shed serving, why don't you answer that. You had radios down to the squad level (as an example)... how does that compare to the US, and how effectively were they used?


Be glad to give you my two cents. You are right that words like "advanced" are arbitary when talking about military equipment since what really matters is what kind of advantage your gear gives you in your situation. Certain types of technology give you a certain type of advantage in a certain situation/tactic/terrain/etc. But some technology gives you broader and better advantage than others. For example you can argue that the American M16 and the Korean K2 rifles are more "advanced" than the AKs used by the Norks but I personally think the AK system has much more desirable traits as an infantry rifle. besides things like the weight or power of a rifle are insignificant in the wider spectrum of war.

Yes the ROK military is more advanced in most aspects compared to the DPRK but compared to the US? Not even close. In general? I don't know what you mean but general. I think the ROK mililtary needs some serious improvements in order to become more effective as fighting force, and its lagging behind in many aspects compared to western nations, and Japan. But immediately, I think its advanced enough to deter, and repel North Korea in the event of a war.

Quote:

2. I was referring to the North's repeated attacks on the South, and their ability to cause damage.... even with 'antiquated systems'.


I was referring to the outcome of a full scare war between to the two. They can do damage by utilizing sneak attacks like they do occasionally but so can the ROK militay if it wanted to. Much weaker, less advanced forces have successfully used guerilla tactics against stronger conquerers, and creative tactics have overcome technological disadvantages, but that isn't up to debate. Sneak attacks alone do not allow you to conquer another nation, which is the ultimate goal of the NKPA. It is a goal I doubt they'll ever achieve.

By the way, people who keep brining up Vietnam and Afghanistan need to study their military history before making comparisons to the NK situation.

Quote:
3. In another thread you went on for some time talking about ... pathetic the training was. Now you are saying it is better than that of the North. When it comes to piloting hours, I have no doubt you are correct, but when it comes to humping over hills... would you really say that the ROK's forces are so much better trained?


It is pathetic. Everything is half-assed and the bureaucracy only helps to make it worse. But that's the thing. The NK military is even worse. Training requires material, and technology also makes a difference in this area. You can't practice shooting your rifle if there aren't enough bullets. It's difficult to make your troops march if they aren't being fed and adequately clothed. Any soldier will tell you what hot chow and a warm blanket can do for morale.

Better technology also enables better training. We have something called the MILES system where you basically add a mod to your gun and make it shoot lasers then you have a huge laser gun fight. Along with paint ammunition used by Western SOF and SWAT teams, MILES is the closest thing you can get to real ground combat without actually being in real combat. The ROK military uses it, albiet in limited scope. But we still have such tools. We also have tank and artillery simulations that are similar. Because of these tools I think the average ROK grunt is of better quality than the average NK grunt.

I am by no means saying that the Norks should be underestimated. When I worked in intelligence, I became alarmed the more I learned about their capabilities and ROK officers know more than anybody that the they are nothing to scoff at. At the same time, my time in the Army opened my eyes to the plethora of problems the ROK Army was suffering from. Still, in the event of an war, not a small scale military provocation, where North Korea tries to physically conquer the South, I do not see them succeeding. The odds are stacked against them in almost every element.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fermentation



Joined: 22 Jun 2009

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:

I would gladly have my SK troops trained by the officers and NCOs of the Vietnam era. Combat experience is combat experience.


I don't know about this. How many guys who served in Nam are still active? I'm asking because it seems like there aren't many if there any at all when you consider the current Joint Chief of Staff, who is one of the oldest guys in the military, was still too young to serve in Nam.
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, 4, 5 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 4 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