EPTN. Korea Vs S. Korea - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Tassadar
United States45 Posts
| ||
|
HurtnTime
United States296 Posts
| ||
|
Tassadar
United States45 Posts
| ||
|
Hades
Canada927 Posts
A) North Korea started their nuclear program before they were called an 'axis of evil' by George Bush. Bush calling them an axis of evil had nothing to do with any association with Iraq (he also called Iran an axis of evil and they are enemies with Iraq). He called them an axis of evil because they are a communist state run by a ruthless dictator. B) They are a couple years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons on ballistic missles. They can however very soon deploy them by other means. C) South Korea has one VERY big problem. They are a centralized state with the majority of their population in one city, Seoul. If your target reduces from 10 to 1, its a lot easier to wage war. D) South Koreas president (prime minister?) has been great in this crisis. Becoming a mediator and looking out for his people. E) A war with North Korea would probably be lost by South Korea, or if they do manage to win their country would probably be destroyed in the process without international help. F) Even if USA troops were to leave South Korea, pleasing many over there, if war happened to break out they would be right back, pleasing many over there. You can't win this war alone, at least without destroying your country in the process. G) Those weapons which you mentioned seem to be produced by Ally states. Much the same weapons Israel has, why arent people getting pissed off over South Korea getting Ally weapons? Israel even produces many of their own weapons of war, and btw are in top 5 for military strength. I would be willing to bet that they by themselves could wipe out the middle east if there were war right now. | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On January 30 2003 20:06 HurtnTime wrote: I wish I knew someone in Kuwait in the 1980s so I could have asked them the same question. I do have to depend on what the media publishes because I am not going to research everything using outside resources. Iraq and North Korea are categorically NOT the same. Nothing under the current set of circumstances suggests that the North can even consider a first strike of any kind against the South (as Iraq did against hapless Kuwait). The geopolitical dynamics on the Korean peninsula are different from the Middle East. North Korea cannot (unlike Iraq) risk alienating its few remaining "allies" (China and Russia) by initiating a wildcat military campaign against the South. Also, as I've repeatedly pointed out, South Korea is infinitely more prepared to deal with North Korean aggression than Kuwait ever was. The parallels are simply not there. But, really, Hurtn, you're missing the point: I am not saying North Korea isn't a threat. I am not saying it will never be a threat in the future. I am not saying that should the US decide to pull out of Korea (however unlikely this scenario may be) that North Korea would never ever consider removing the South Korean government by force. I am simply stating reality as it is now today: despite all the hype in the news about possible North Korean aggression, everything we know about the North points in the opposite direction to what the media (and the Bush Administration) have said. The North will not strike first, conventionally or otherwise. The costs would be too heavy and the ideological impetus for aggression are underwhelming at best. As things stand now, the only reason the North would consider turning to open aggression first (and bring certain retaliatory devastation on itself) is if they are somehow forced into it - like if the US starts massing troops along the DMZ. | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On January 30 2003 20:26 Hades wrote: Im not going to really try to argue but I would like to make a couple points... A) North Korea started their nuclear program before they were called an 'axis of evil' by George Bush. Bush calling them an axis of evil had nothing to do with any association with Iraq (he also called Iran an axis of evil and they are enemies with Iraq). He called them an axis of evil because they are a communist state run by a ruthless dictator. B) They are a couple years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons on ballistic missles. They can however very soon deploy them by other means. C) South Korea has one VERY big problem. They are a centralized state with the majority of their population in one city, Seoul. If your target reduces from 10 to 1, its a lot easier to wage war. D) South Koreas president (prime minister?) has been great in this crisis. Becoming a mediator and looking out for his people. E) A war with North Korea would probably be lost by South Korea, or if they do manage to win their country would probably be destroyed in the process without international help. F) Even if USA troops were to leave South Korea, pleasing many over there, if war happened to break out they would be right back, pleasing many over there. You can't win this war alone, at least without destroying your country in the process. G) Those weapons which you mentioned seem to be produced by Ally states. Much the same weapons Israel has, why arent people getting pissed off over South Korea getting Ally weapons? Israel even produces many of their own weapons of war, and btw are in top 5 for military strength. I would be willing to bet that they by themselves could wipe out the middle east if there were war right now. Hades, You state personal opinions, not facts. Read the quotes I provided in my posts. Please, be objective. At the very least, check out the latest information avaliable at Jane's Defense Weekly for a more accurate assessment of the North and South Korea's relative military capabilities. You are dead wrong. | ||
|
HurtnTime
United States296 Posts
People with different opinions from yours arent automatically stupid and uneducated. Get past that and realize people can see the same facts and draw different conclusions. Sometimes it falls inline with what the media is publishing and sometimes it doesnt. There is a lot of different opinions over here on whats going on. But in the end, the world does mostly judge based on what the government does. I actually havent spent time learning about the Korean situation since its mostly Iraq that is my main concern at the moment. The little I know is: 1. Korean war never formally ended. The firing just stopped. 2. Heavily defended borders on both sides. 3. N.Korea continued a nuclear program after agreeing not to. 4. Test missles fired by N.Korea have flown over Japan. 5. N.Korea recently sold missles to Yemen. 6. N.Korea population is very oppressed. 7. S.Korea is showing they are tired of the US presence after some civilians were run over and killed (accident). That's all I can remember off the top of my head and I dont pay too much attention to this situation yet. Most of my thoughts are based off that limited exposure. From what I've read, I think its more likely N.Korea wants nukes as a power status regardless of whether they fear a US invasion/attack. "Tactical nuke" doesnt make much sense to me. Why would you detonate a nuclear weapon in your own country? | ||
|
Hades
Canada927 Posts
If a doctor and a bum get in a gunfight, and the doctor kills the bum but the bum gets one shot off and blinds the doctor... who actually won or should I say lost more? | ||
|
HurtnTime
United States296 Posts
It just doesnt take much to escalate things. Something like say when the US had the Cuban missle crisis. Scary times. | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On January 30 2003 20:49 Hades wrote: Mensrea -- while i agree with you that North Korea would probably lose in a war... It would be a fight. If a doctor and a bum get in a gunfight, and the doctor kills the bum but the bum gets one shot off and blinds the doctor... who actually won or should I say lost more? Hades, I think we're both talking on the same frequency, but just somehow not hearing each other. My point all along has been PRECISELY that any war on the Korean peninsula would be too costly for both sides. It almost assuredly wouldn't matter who won because the destruction would be too great for all sides. And that is why North Korea, under the present set of realities, would never try an offensive. It would be tantamount to suicide. North Korea is a rational player and will behave accordingly. (Please, see my earlier posts where I outline my argument in greater detail) The Western media and the White House are blowing the North Korean threat way out of proportion. In truth tho, it's probably all a lot of hot air and posturing. There may be war in Iraq, but it would take an extraordinary set of cirumstances far beyond anything that's forseeable currently to set off war here in Korea. There's simply too much to lose and not enough to gain. North Korea knows this and so does Bush. | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On January 30 2003 20:45 HurtnTime wrote: "Tactical nuke" doesnt make much sense to me. Why would you detonate a nuclear weapon in your own country? Please, refer to the quote by Derek Mitchell contained in one of my earlier threads. I don't expect you to take my word for things. But, I do hope that you try and keep an open mind about things. Thx for listening. | ||
|
HurtnTime
United States296 Posts
I do care about other nations and our involvements because it affects our economy and therefore affects my financial situation. Everytime I see our stock market go down I trully feel the pain. I would much rather we all got along and no wars ever broke out. May not seem realistic but I think it will happen one day. BTW - If my neighbor had a rabid dog fenced in and contained (even promising it is impossible for it to get out), I would still want that dog put down. I know this is a super simplification but I do have mistrust for regimes that seek and conceal weapons of mass destruction. | ||
|
Anal_Ripper
Russian Federation1233 Posts
On January 30 2003 20:00 Tassadar wrote: I don't know why people keep depecting american's as mindless fool's .. dunno , mb because you can't spell your own lagnuage? | ||
|
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On January 30 2003 21:18 HurtnTime wrote: Thanks for posting your thoughts. Much appreciated. I do care about other nations and our involvements because it affects our economy and therefore affects my financial situation. Everytime I see our stock market go down I trully feel the pain. I would much rather we all got along and no wars ever broke out. May not seem realistic but I think it will happen one day. BTW - If my neighbor had a rabid dog fenced in and contained (even promising it is impossible for it to get out), I would still want that dog put down. I know this is a super simplification but I do have mistrust for regimes that seek and conceal weapons of mass destruction. ...as do I. I am in perfect agreement with you there. I simply do not believe in Good vs Evil mentality in the real world. North Korea is no more "good" than it is "evil." Neither is the United States (despite all its pretensions otherwise). They are all simply rational actors with self-interest at heart. And that's the way the North Korea situation (and all geopolitical "issues") should be understood. Appreciate your opinions, too. Thx.  | ||
|
Hades
Canada927 Posts
I have done some research on North Korea, and while you may feel you can trust him, I have seen nothing to make that conclusion. He has, *A NUMBER OF TIMES*, agreed to stop nuclear weapons programs, his people are starving to death (reported 2 million people died in 1997) and yet he continues to spend his very limited money all on military might, neglecting his citizens and relying on international aid. After reading your posts, you paint him as someone trying to defend himself when backed into the corner. You forget why he is being backed into the corner in the first place. He is letting his people die of starvation for his own survival. As long as he is in power, constantly taking what he can get and hiding what hes got, North Korea will always be on the defensive, as they should because their leader doesnt have his priorities straight. If anyone is interested in doing a little bit of research, here are some decent sites I have found: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/rok/nis-docs/index.html - Military and Political information about North Korea http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/choss/reco.htm - Deals with the recolonization of South Korea, and how USA gained their influence (Anti-USA zealots will rejoice, as with all emperors-clothes articles it is anti-american) http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/subsectionmenu/0,5667,854619,00.html - Timeline of North Korea from 1991 - 2003. Deals with agreements to stop nuclear testing, their testing of missles over japan, and their famine issues. I will be the first to admit, that none of those are really pro-North Korea. The problem is it is hard to find something that is pro North Korea from any source. If anybody finds an article from their point of view, could you please post a link... | ||
|
ErOs_Probe
Netherlands680 Posts
Oh yeah btw I feel safe in holland !  | ||
|
Imperium
United States614 Posts
well, I was jk there... just messing around  but North Korea and China are like the only Communist nations still on the planet. that means north korea has china backing them up. IF North Korea were to attack South Korea, they'd have China right there with them. but, of course, south korea has boxer... he'll just do some gosu goliath drop micro and north korea/china will NEVER stand a chance  | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12269 Posts
Bush wants North Korea to disarm (stop nuclear research and production) as a preventative measure to a conflict, just as with Iraq. The North Korean government, by starving its own people and spending more of what little money it has on military, has proven that it is not a government by the people, for the people. It is a government for itself. In my opinion a regime like that can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. Good stuff though Mensrea. EDIT: Imperium -- But Boxer's worst matchup is TvT (Froz, JoseZ). T.T | ||
|
NoName
United States1558 Posts
| ||
|
Hades
Canada927 Posts
| ||
| ||
