|
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 |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| fermentation wrote: |
| They don't have the manpower to launch a full scale invasion by themselves anyway. |
They have 125 million to N.K.'s 25 million. They wouldn't be able to invade only when considering participation from China.
Who would want Japan to invade anyway or for that fact South Korea? Both have a demonstrated propensity for atrocities. The war would have to be fought by the Allies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This happened 40 years ago. It was a different army and different mind set. |
True, but you still have veterans from that war that are probably in high positions, and you did get the benefits of training passed down, though that effect is certainly diluted.
| Quote: |
Look, South Korea was attacked twice in the past few years and the response was pathetic. Perhaps it was the best response, but it still made South Korea look weak.
|
In one sense yes, in another sense no. In a macrosense, S.Korea looks rather strong.
| Quote: |
The South Koreans may be playing the long game here and be waiting for collapse by the North like you said. But in the meantime I wish the South Korean government/media/public would just stop with the Dokdo/Sea of Japan/Comfort Women issues and focus on the real issue here.
This is why I don't take South Koreans seriously and am extremely pessimistic about their military preparedness.
|
Can't say I disagree with you here. Every dollar wasted on Dokdo is a dollar not spent on North Korean reconstruction and unification.
Well, blowhard politicians may raise a lot of seemingly insignificant issues and people may yell over nothing, but that doesn't usually effect their military preparedness.
It's not like all their military forces are being deployed on the coast of the Sea of Japan, threatening to strike at Dokdo.
| Quote: |
| I just thought that since the Cheonan was involved in a pair of battles and anti-submarine operations that it would be classified as a battle or war ship |
A warship, yes. A battleship, no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
You guys do realize that April 15th is a significant date for NK right?
Birthdate of Kim Il Sung...they will do something to celebrate this and that might be the excuse to test launch a missile.
As for Japan being attacked, The US would have to respond due to the mutual defense treaty and SK would likely offer support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| fermentation wrote: |
| They don't have the manpower to launch a full scale invasion by themselves anyway. |
They have 125 million to N.K.'s 25 million. They wouldn't be able to invade only when considering participation from China.
Who would want Japan to invade anyway or for that fact South Korea? Both have a demonstrated propensity for atrocities. The war would have to be fought by the Allies. |
They wouldn't. That was my point. I also don't think they would conscript their entire population to invade North Korea.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| True, but you still have veterans from that war that are probably in high positions, and you did get the benefits of training passed down, though that effect is certainly diluted. |
You've said this before, but how true is it? Neither the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff and the Minister of Defense, and none of the Chiefs of Staffs of all the military branches served in Vietnam. The Minister of Defense graduated from the Army Academy a year before Korea's involvement in the war ended. All the other guys I mentioned are younger than he is. The commander of the ROK MC graduated the Naval Academy after the war. I highly doubt there are any active duty Vietnam veterans right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everything-is-everything
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fermentation wrote: |
You've said this before, but how true is it? Neither the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff and the Minister of Defense, and none of the Chiefs of Staffs of all the military branches served in Vietnam. The Minister of Defense graduated from the Army Academy a year before Korea's involvement in the war ended. All the other guys I mentioned are younger than he is. The commander of the ROK MC graduated the Naval Academy after the war. I highly doubt there are any active duty Vietnam veterans right now. |
Thank you for pointing this out.
It also probably explains why the Americans seem to get involved in military conflicts every decade or so.
70s - Vietnam
80s- Panama and Greneda
90s - Iraq
00s - Afghanistan and Iraq
10s - Afghanistan
20s -  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You've said this before, but how true is it? Neither the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff and the Minister of Defense, and none of the Chiefs of Staffs of all the military branches served in Vietnam. The Minister of Defense graduated from the Army Academy a year before Korea's involvement in the war ended. All the other guys I mentioned are younger than he is. The commander of the ROK MC graduated the Naval Academy after the war. I highly doubt there are any active duty Vietnam veterans right now. |
Well I did mention that the training was passed down and likely diluted. As for the older guys, admittedly it was a guesstimate based on the fact that a considerable number served and at least with the US as a comparison, you have Vietnam-era figures still around (though probably A LOT have left in the last 5-10 years).
You got Nam vets John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in the US, still looking relatively young and spry. If not occupying top positions or still active, there are probably plenty who would serve in a civilian advisory capacity.
It stands to reason that much of Korea's military until the 2000s was drilled and trained by veterans of the Vietnam War. As I said, obviously there is a considerable degree of dilution, but to suggest that none of that espirit de corps lingers is a bit much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everything-is-everything
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You've said this before, but how true is it? Neither the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff and the Minister of Defense, and none of the Chiefs of Staffs of all the military branches served in Vietnam. The Minister of Defense graduated from the Army Academy a year before Korea's involvement in the war ended. All the other guys I mentioned are younger than he is. The commander of the ROK MC graduated the Naval Academy after the war. I highly doubt there are any active duty Vietnam veterans right now. |
Well I did mention that the training was passed down and likely diluted. As for the older guys, admittedly it was a guesstimate based on the fact that a considerable number served and at least with the US as a comparison, you have Vietnam-era figures still around (though probably A LOT have left in the last 5-10 years).
You got Nam vets John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in the US, still looking relatively young and spry. If not occupying top positions or still active, there are probably plenty who would serve in a civilian advisory capacity.
It stands to reason that much of Korea's military until the 2000s was drilled and trained by veterans of the Vietnam War. As I said, obviously there is a considerable degree of dilution, but to suggest that none of that espirit de corps lingers is a bit much. |
The first time I actually heard about Korea's involvement was actually on this board. Well, I think I may have heard a passing reference to it back in university.
Nonetheless, South Korea's involvement in Vietnam doesn't seem to be talked much about in this country.
Why is that?
It seems to be a lost part of Korean history, especially among the young. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| everything-is-everything wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You've said this before, but how true is it? Neither the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff and the Minister of Defense, and none of the Chiefs of Staffs of all the military branches served in Vietnam. The Minister of Defense graduated from the Army Academy a year before Korea's involvement in the war ended. All the other guys I mentioned are younger than he is. The commander of the ROK MC graduated the Naval Academy after the war. I highly doubt there are any active duty Vietnam veterans right now. |
Well I did mention that the training was passed down and likely diluted. As for the older guys, admittedly it was a guesstimate based on the fact that a considerable number served and at least with the US as a comparison, you have Vietnam-era figures still around (though probably A LOT have left in the last 5-10 years).
You got Nam vets John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in the US, still looking relatively young and spry. If not occupying top positions or still active, there are probably plenty who would serve in a civilian advisory capacity.
It stands to reason that much of Korea's military until the 2000s was drilled and trained by veterans of the Vietnam War. As I said, obviously there is a considerable degree of dilution, but to suggest that none of that espirit de corps lingers is a bit much. |
The first time I actually heard about Korea's involvement was actually on this board. Well, I think I may have heard a passing reference to it back in university.
Nonetheless, South Korea's involvement in Vietnam doesn't seem to be talked much about in this country.
Why is that?
It seems to be a lost part of Korean history, especially among the young. |
Uhhh there have been like several major movies and music videos featuring it. I think they may have also done a Korean 'Miss Saigon' about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everything-is-everything
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| everything-is-everything wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You've said this before, but how true is it? Neither the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff and the Minister of Defense, and none of the Chiefs of Staffs of all the military branches served in Vietnam. The Minister of Defense graduated from the Army Academy a year before Korea's involvement in the war ended. All the other guys I mentioned are younger than he is. The commander of the ROK MC graduated the Naval Academy after the war. I highly doubt there are any active duty Vietnam veterans right now. |
Well I did mention that the training was passed down and likely diluted. As for the older guys, admittedly it was a guesstimate based on the fact that a considerable number served and at least with the US as a comparison, you have Vietnam-era figures still around (though probably A LOT have left in the last 5-10 years).
You got Nam vets John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in the US, still looking relatively young and spry. If not occupying top positions or still active, there are probably plenty who would serve in a civilian advisory capacity.
It stands to reason that much of Korea's military until the 2000s was drilled and trained by veterans of the Vietnam War. As I said, obviously there is a considerable degree of dilution, but to suggest that none of that espirit de corps lingers is a bit much. |
The first time I actually heard about Korea's involvement was actually on this board. Well, I think I may have heard a passing reference to it back in university.
Nonetheless, South Korea's involvement in Vietnam doesn't seem to be talked much about in this country.
Why is that?
It seems to be a lost part of Korean history, especially among the young. |
Uhhh there have been like several major movies and music videos featuring it. I think they may have also done a Korean 'Miss Saigon' about it. |
Which movies btw?
I've seen about 30 Korean movies so far, but I'd be interested in one depicting the Koreans involvement in Nam.
Music videos?
Anyways, I teach a lot of business classes so most of my students are older Korean men. And I've asked them all about Vietnam this week and most don't seem to know much about it.
I don't think Vietnam entered the public psyche like it did in America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know how long you've been in Korea but I am surprised you haven't heard about ROK involvement in Vietnam before. It is a major chapter in modern Korean history, especially in its military development. It obviously doesn't hold the same kind of importance as it does in America though.
| Quote: |
It also probably explains why the Americans seem to get involved in military conflicts every decade or so.
70s - Vietnam
80s- Panama and Greneda
90s - Iraq
00s - Afghanistan and Iraq
10s - Afghanistan
|
The US was involved in Vietnam long before the 70s. Kosovo and Somalia should be in there somewhere too.
Real combat experience is valuable but sometimes I think its overrated if the experience isn't properly analyzed and the lessons learned aren't applied. Also having experience in one type of war isn't always applicable to another. The Italians had plenty of experience putting down insurgencies during the pre-war years only to end up getting spanked by much more efficient modern armies in their North African campaign. Similarly, America's current experiences in Afghanistan might end up doing more harm if the time comes for a large-scale conventional conflict. There are some experts who are worried about this.
That being said, none of this would really apply to a NK missile launch on Japan. If they do such a thing, it would be an isolated incident since North Korea wouldn't directly invade Japan and bypass South Korea. I'm sure the Japanese have made contingency plans for such emergencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| Japan is extremely well armed and they are a most capable people and I am sure they have contingency plans made if the N.K were to attack them |
I'm sure they have contingency plans for a nuclear meltdown too...
| rollo wrote: |
| As far as the U.s. leaving the area, read the history of North Asia, and it will explain why the U.S. presence is welcomed by everyone including China. Well maybe the Norks dont want the U.s. but they really don't count. WAR after war, most conflicts centering around Korea. |
As long as Japan was able to get nukes for itself as a deterrent against NK and China, I don't see why everyone in the region wouldn't be happy to see the US go - except South Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| Japan is extremely well armed and they are a most capable people and I am sure they have contingency plans made if the N.K were to attack them |
I'm sure they have contingency plans for a nuclear meltdown too...
|
Yeah, and they put those plans into place, which considering it occurred at the same time as a massive tsunami, went off pretty well, all things considered.
Your statement proves or adds nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Neutered???? They can produce a nuc,lear weapon in weeks if they do not already have one. They have one of the fastest growing militarys in the world. they have very advanced electonic warfare capabilities. A very good navy and airforce. furthermore the Japanese police would be the training cadre to bring the army up to strength. It is a paramilitary organization. they are heavily armed in fact.
As long as china did not get involved they would take care of North korea easily.
China is not happy about any of this.
They have the industrial muscle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well read the history of the imjin war. see if tht does not change your mind about how determined Koreans can be.
they got slaughtered by the Japanese who were better armed, better trained and better led. but after two years of fighting, the Koreans started to turn things around. Despite taking a huge number of casualties they regrouped and went on the ofensive against the Japanese. Winning several key battles. Koreans are known as feirce determined fighters.
Yes the U.S. out of the region, there would be no friction between Russia, China, Japan, none. everyone would sit in a circle and sing KUmbaya holding hands.
Privateer, read some history of the North Asia area. it is dark and bloody. Besides the current N.K. noise, Japan and russia are hissing at each other, china and Japan are having a spat. Before the U.s. presence this would have been wars , now they are just diplomatic rows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sort of off topic but related. the Japanese diet is debating changing the constitution to be a more Japanese constitution. Include in this is expanding the military. NO one in Asia is happy about this. the chinese are hopping mad. to themit sounds like a new age of Japanese militarism. very interesting. |
|
| 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
