EPTN. Korea Vs S. Korea
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
juhhA
United States295 Posts
| ||
|
ky[Z]
China1730 Posts
| ||
|
OrangeTerran
United States963 Posts
| ||
|
ejai63
United States2101 Posts
| ||
|
no1important
557 Posts
 Although North Might beat south in a war  Please dont spam this coz im not really sure | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On January 30 2003 05:54 juhhA wrote: I was just looking at CNN.com and thought isn't it scary over there in Seoul, South Korea? With all those threats from north korea and everything? Scary? Not at all. Most of the posts above are correct. Don't trust everything you read in the papers - and see on TV. North Korea does not have a tactical military advantage over the South - with or without the American presence. Much of North Korea's military capabilities are based on numbers only. For example, a substantial % of the North's vaunted tank forces are outdated T-50s from a generation ago. On the other hand, the South can afford to bring in top-of-the-line hardware like M1A tanks, F-16 and F-15 fighter/bombers that'll cut T-50s like hot knife through butter. Militarily, we live in a much-changed world and, as the US showed in the Gulf War, technology can be the ultimate equalizer. North Korea's "nuclear threat" isn't much of one either (despite all protestations to the contrary from CNN and the Bush Administration). The best estimates from US government intelligence (ie the CIA) puts the North at least a couple of years away from actually developing an explodable nuke of any type, let alone one that they can actually mount onto a ballistic missile. If the North really is serious about developing a nuclear weapons program, it's likely because they feel that there is a clear and present danger to their existence as a sovereign state. And guess where the threat's coming from? One hint: it ain't the South Koreans (ask any Korean in the South if they'd consider initiating war against the North - just make sure you're able to prove your sanity to them afterwards). The only state that's capable of even planning a military attack on North Korea is the United States. And after being branded a "rogue state" and part of an "axis of evil" (does North Korea even have any formal relations with Iraq...?) and told basically that "after Iraq, YOU'RE NEXT" who can blame the North for re-starting a nuclear weapons program they feel is their only means of safety? Where was all the hoopla when South Africa developed nukes? Did anyone in the Western media even care when it was revealed that Israel may have stockpiled not one, not two, but 700 nukes in their arsenal? Does anyone old enough to read seriously think that North Korea is more capable of using nukes against its perceived enemies than Israel? Than Pakistan? North Korea is a perfectly rational state. It does what it must to survive. It's leaders are neither dumb nor insane. They use the threat of war to draw attention to their agendas (including, survival). Are they a possible threat to peace in the Far East? Yes. But, no more so than the United states. The world is not Us v Them, Good v Evil, however simple we might wish things were. A few things to keep in mind the next time you tune into CNN. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
I can think like that to myself, and i can say it in a long conversation but i have a hard time typing it all in words when i get to this forum. gogo  | ||
|
MistyMarvel
1 Post
| ||
|
Kr_P33r
Korea (South)1 Post
They can still be used to rain shells onto seoul and fire missiles (which they have developed a lot recently), killing a lot of people. Although I doubt it will come to a time where the South and North go to war over the nuclear missile issue, my point is if they attacked first they could easily break through to seoul as it is so close to the dmz. Not that I'm worried about North Korea. Not many south Koreans are; we're more worried about the US and Bushes war mongering --v Just saying that the south korean army is still not ready to stand up by themselves to north koreas if they launched a blitz on them especially since the north already has a few nukes (at least they believe so). Ugh I just wish we could both get on >< Bleh my grandads relatives were seperated during the korean war Such a complex issue this is  Btw everything else i agree with mensea with ^^ | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
My point wasn't that the North would do ZERO harm to the South in a tactical military exchange. I only wanted to dispel some misconceptions about the extent of North Korea's military capabilities and ambitions. The fact is, neither armies of the North or South Korea have any objective superiority over the other when it comes to offensive capability. It is pure fiction (and the height of ignorance) to suggest that North Korea can somehow march into South Korea any time it wants with impunity. Any such campaign would be devastating to both sides and it is precisely this scenario of mutual destruction which keeps things in balance on the peninsula. It is also the basic premise underlying the South Korean military's target state of military capability and readiness: match the North strength for strength. This brings me to my next point. I find it incredible that people continue to ignore the fact that the South spends so much more on its military than the North (US $13 billion v US $5 billion/yr) and on more quality hardware. The US and South Korean military establishment never mention such hard data (altho they're careful not to deny it completely). They will, however, continue to yell at the top of their lungs that North Korea spends 30% of its GDP on the military compared to a measly 3% for the South. The problem, of course, is that South Korea's economy is approximately 40 times bigger than the North's. DUH. An offensive military campaign by EITHER the North or the South on the Korean peninsula would be close to suicidal. War is NOT a viable option on the Korean peninsula - not for either side. And both sides know it. Now, hopefully, everyone reading this does too. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12269 Posts
1. North Korea never halted its nuclear weapons program, it simply hid it away from Clinton, and Clinton believed them. He was lied to. North Korea must have known, just like the rest of the world, that Clinton was no threat to the rest of the world because he's an appeaser. If North Korea did feel threatened by the United States, why would it develop a nuclear program when such a peacenik President was in power? North Korea must be the aggressor. 2. North Korea spends 30% of its GDP on the military, compared to South Korea's 3%, where South Korea's GDP is 40x larger. This I understand. BUT - look at the priorities of the North Korean government. If they are a communist state, why are they pushing their military agenda so heavily instead of spending more on their people's welfare? North Korea and South Korea may spend similar amounts of money, but the military is a much larger focus for the North. You honestly don't think North Korea is going to blackmail its neighbors with nuclear threats, when it is surrounded by anti-Communist countries? I think North Korea is banking on the US taking a passive stance while the UN defends the North's nuclear buildup. | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
I'll answer your comments in turn. 1) "North Korea must be the aggressor?" What is the basis of this statement? Because it's started a nuclear weapons program? The North Korean nuclear weapons program is designed to produce what political scientists and military analysts call "tactical" nuclear weapons. The weapons are meant to be used as deterrence against possible invasion (ie defensively). On the other hand, (just to illustrate the opposite), the United States and the former Soviet Union have "strategic nuclear capability," meaning essentially they have first-strike enabled nukes. North Korea does not have the technology to build nukes that can be mounted onto missiles. According to the CIA they're "[not] sure the North Koreans have the skill to make a nuclear device small enough to load onto its missiles." In practice, this means that North Korea cannot realistically use nukes in an offensive campaign of any kind. Yes, all this may change in a few years and that's the basis of the argument for taking out the North Koreans now. But, let's have some perspective here. Here's what former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said recently when people started talking about the "grave and serious threat" of China (a MUCH more formidable power than North Korea, I'm sure everyone would agree) and its increasingly "aggressive" military: "The Chinese strategic force of some thirty liquid-fuel missiles with single warheads, requiring hours to launch, is not an instrument for offensive operations... As for China's ground forces, they are capable of defending the home country through a strategy of attrition but not suitable for sustained offensive operations against a major opponent." Kissinger, his personal shortcomings notwithstanding, is a smart man. He dismissed any talk of a serious offensive threat by the Chinese against the US because of a simple UNIVERSAL principle (ie applies to everyone - Koreans, Americans, Chinese, Cambodian, et al.): no one sane and rational would consider being an aggressor against an opponent with a much bigger military "stick" - not if it means their own destruction in the process. If the US and its allies wield a large stick, and China a small stick - then North Korea, now and for as long into the future as you're practically willing to project, has the equivalent of a toothpick. But, even a fool with a toothpick will be forced to use it if backed into a corner and threatened with annihilation. And that's why North Korea wants a nuke: to make it too costly for any rational nation to seriously consider offensive military action against it (just like what the Bush Administration is doing now). I think Derek Mitchell (former Pentagon official for Asia policy) said it best: "People talk about North Korea being crazy, but it's not. It's purely rational for a nation with no assets being threatened by the world's major power to develop insurance against attack." Also, Don Oberdorfer, journalist-in-residence at Johns Hopkins University's Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, and who was with the US delegation (led by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly) that most recently visited the North: "I had the distinct impression that North Korea would settle for something well short of the nonaggression treaty they requested, if a credible assurance of their security was presented in some high-level fashion. What they really wanted, it seemed to me, was a face-saving way out of the uranium-enrichment program, which, according to US intelligence, is years away from producing the raw material for even a single nuclear weapon." Unlike you or I, these are people whose job it is to know exactly what's going on with respect to the North Korean threat. They are professional realists, but even they do not believe North Korea poses a credible offensive threat to the US, South Korea or any other nation in the area. What all of them are saying is that North Korea is a rational state that feels threatened by the US militarily and is using the nuclear "card" to force everyone in the area to come to the bargaining table for its own survival. The goal of North Korea is not to build up a nuclear arsenal so it can conquer the world. 2) I do not see your point. How does your comment add anything new to a discussion on whether South Koreans feel threatened by the North militarily? South Koreans DO NOT feel threatened by the North - whether or not the North has a "much larger focus" on its military. The South outspends the North in its military and can outgun the North in a shootout. The costs of such a confrontation tho is too great for either side to realistically consider. Nothing you said changes this. | ||
|
NoName
United States1558 Posts
Hey, all those Koreans open up stores in the worst neighborhoods in the USA. During the LA riots, I remeber pictures of them standing on top of and protecting their stores with uzis. As to the danger of N Korea, my brother thought there was a real and present danger, and there where N Korean sabateours, instigators everywhere... that was why the US is there. -- personally I think alot is a relic from the cold war. And I don't understand why some people can't seem to let go of the coldwar. Maybe to them bigger military is the way to a safer and better world, and threatening to use it is the best way to do things... But I think it is old people stuck in an old way of thinking, when times have changed, and they are still trying to turn back the clock. | ||
|
HurtnTime
United States296 Posts
My understanding is that it is the most heavily defended border in the world. Clear that up, get the north and south to hang out at bars drinking beer and singing Kum-Ba-Ya (or however it is spelled) and then I will believe that there is no reason for fear. - HurtnTime | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
I have already made it very clear that YES, North Korea presents a threat to peace in the area. But, NO, North Korea does not realistically (and will not for the forseeable future) have the offensive capabilities to win an offensive military campaign against the South - and not all the baying from CNN and the White House is gonna change that. And YOU have no reason to fear because YOU live in the United States and no country on the planet possesses anywhere near the military strength to even look at you the wrong way. Peace. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
http://www.cyberista.com/cyberistaeditorialdefault.asp?ID=-1054063114 | ||
|
Anal_Ripper
Russian Federation1233 Posts
On January 30 2003 17:49 mensrea wrote: I And YOU have no reason to fear because YOU live in the United States and no country on the planet possesses anywhere near the military strength to even look at you the wrong way.  I don't really believe military superiority is a 100 % guarantee of safety. Just look at the 9/11 situation. They couldnt prevent the catastrophe, though I hardly believe they couldn't predict it (of course there are some "conspiracy in the CIA" theories, but I seriously doubt they are true). War with terrorism is by far more difficult than the open conflict.N.Korea does not pose a serious threat on its own, but if it joins forces with all those taliban and bin laden freaks it could change the situation. BTW, speaking of armies, I believe Chinese and Indian armies are quite massive (they lack very advanced tech tho) and they use one of the best ewapons in the world (i.e. Russian  ) taking into consideration china's GDP growth rate, it could soon become a major player. | ||
|
NoName
United States1558 Posts
Now everything is a soundbite, one liner, 10 second clip, that has to be filtered, censored, spun, angled any number of different ways, for fast food quality consumption. It is like tabloid "yellow" news journalism from 100 years ago, I read about in history class. They would say any old thing, and bend the truth, all that mattered was selling more newspapers. There no longer seems to be any such thing as real investigative reporting. The low point for me was learning how NBC rigged a truck crash test to "prove" the bad gastanks would explode. The saddest thing is the viewers don't seem to care. | ||
|
HurtnTime
United States296 Posts
Living in the USA I have no clue what its like there. I do have family in the military so even though I feel safe at home, I do fear for them. Understand? | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On January 30 2003 19:09 HurtnTime wrote: I have a question for you Mensrea. I am hearing the S.Korean's are starting to turn against USA troops being stationed there. If the USA decided to pack up and leave and at the same time say they will not interfere with matters in the region, would you still feel safe? Yes. | ||
| ||
