[QUOTE=Fiona]Ok. I am not defending them. But I am parochial and I notice this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4494051.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3746162.stm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 06,00.html
From Wiki on Calton ( an area of Glasgow)
"Calton is an area of considerable poverty and deprivation. [3] A BBC Scotland news report on 13 February 2006 pointed out that partially due to poor diet, crime, alcohol and drug abuse, life expectancy in Calton is lower than in some areas of Iraq or the Gaza Strip."
We haven't had a famine or a war or a dictator or international economic sanctions to contend with.[/QUOTE]But neither did Britain lose over 10% of it's population in 3 years. I think it's also disingenious to compare a very local situation with a country average. I'm fairly sure that if detailed studies would be made, some even more appalling local examples could be found in North Korea. Furthermore, part of the problem in the Scottish example is self-inflicted (smoking & alcohol) and could in part only be solved by heavy handed intervention. The problem in North Korea is malnutrition - which has negative effects apart from shortening lifespan & increasing child mortality, like diminishing productivity and education levels. And this is not only a case of figures, it is a case a government deliberately hampering efforts for aid to reach the most vulnerable, and buying armament for large amounts of money while at the same time trying to extort aid from abroad.
North Korea fire Two Missiles
-
Fiona
As I said, I am not defending them.
And yes there will be regional differences. But from the Korean point of view they may be one country and the disparities between north and south are similar at least as far as life expectancy goes. The implication is that it is the government which makes the difference between north and south Korea, but here it is all one government. The fact remains that without any natural ( or maybe unnatural) disaster, or international sanctions the life expectancy has fallen in parts of the north of one of the richest countries in the world. And the gap between rich and poor has grown. And malnutrition is a problem here too. Not on the same scale, I do not mean to make invidious comparisons. But there is no reason or excuse for homelessness and poverty here yet it is quite common. It is disgraceful and I am not prepared to concede that a government which can allow it in these circumstances is better than that in a country with far greater problems which I know nothing about
I know it is not comparable, but it is important. Arms spending seems to me to always produce poverty, btw. And we spend a fair bit on that ourselves.
And yes there will be regional differences. But from the Korean point of view they may be one country and the disparities between north and south are similar at least as far as life expectancy goes. The implication is that it is the government which makes the difference between north and south Korea, but here it is all one government. The fact remains that without any natural ( or maybe unnatural) disaster, or international sanctions the life expectancy has fallen in parts of the north of one of the richest countries in the world. And the gap between rich and poor has grown. And malnutrition is a problem here too. Not on the same scale, I do not mean to make invidious comparisons. But there is no reason or excuse for homelessness and poverty here yet it is quite common. It is disgraceful and I am not prepared to concede that a government which can allow it in these circumstances is better than that in a country with far greater problems which I know nothing about
I know it is not comparable, but it is important. Arms spending seems to me to always produce poverty, btw. And we spend a fair bit on that ourselves.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I know it is not comparable, but it is important. Arms spending seems to me to always produce poverty, btw. And we spend a fair bit on that ourselves.[/QUOTE]Not a fifth to a quarter of GNP...
In an uncertain world, defense spending will always be required.
In an uncertain world, defense spending will always be required.
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
[url="http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm"]UK MoD[/url] 2.2% of GNP, that is proportionally ten times less...
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
-
Fiona
These missiles worry me a bit, I was one of those US troops there a month ago 
Personally I think we should attack them now, that would paradoxially be the best way to prevent loss of life, and would only sacrifice the moral high ground.
Personally I think we should attack them now, that would paradoxially be the best way to prevent loss of life, and would only sacrifice the moral high ground.
If I asked, would you answer? Its your problem. Its a deep, deep problem. I have no way to ask about that... I have no elegant way of stepping into your heart without tracking in filth. So I will wait. Someday, when you want to tell me, tell me then. -Bleach
[QUOTE=Zelgadis]Personally I think we should attack them now, that would paradoxially be the best way to prevent loss of life, and would only sacrifice the moral high ground.[/QUOTE] ... and you'd sacrifice your Seoul. (pardon the pun)
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
[QUOTE=Lestat]... and you'd sacrifice your Seoul. (pardon the pun)[/QUOTE]
Hahaha!
Just attack very fast with overwhelming force
Hahaha!
Just attack very fast with overwhelming force
If I asked, would you answer? Its your problem. Its a deep, deep problem. I have no way to ask about that... I have no elegant way of stepping into your heart without tracking in filth. So I will wait. Someday, when you want to tell me, tell me then. -Bleach
[QUOTE=Zelgadis]Hahaha!
Just attack very fast with overwhelming force[/QUOTE]That's the problem (read previous posts about force strengths in Korea).
Just attack very fast with overwhelming force[/QUOTE]That's the problem (read previous posts about force strengths in Korea).
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
[QUOTE=Lestat]That's the problem (read previous posts about force strengths in Korea).[/QUOTE]
I'm well aware of their forces, but the outcome would inevitably be a US-South Korean victory. The first thirty minutes of the war would be the only part with question marks, after that all except N Korea's ground forces would likely be expended or defeated. With the advantage of a preemptive strike, casualties will be greatly reduced from what would happen if N Korea attacks first.
I'm well aware of their forces, but the outcome would inevitably be a US-South Korean victory. The first thirty minutes of the war would be the only part with question marks, after that all except N Korea's ground forces would likely be expended or defeated. With the advantage of a preemptive strike, casualties will be greatly reduced from what would happen if N Korea attacks first.
If I asked, would you answer? Its your problem. Its a deep, deep problem. I have no way to ask about that... I have no elegant way of stepping into your heart without tracking in filth. So I will wait. Someday, when you want to tell me, tell me then. -Bleach
-
Chimaera182
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:00 am
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Fiona]Is it possible they think they are a sovereign nation?[/QUOTE]
A sovereign nation? Seriously, sovereign? That's just unheard of.
[QUOTE=Fiona]The plan is that 5,000 US troops will leave South Korea this year, 3,000 next year, 2,000 in 2006, and 2,500 in 2007 and 2008.
That will leave a total of about 24,500 troops in the country. [/QUOTE]
So... the US is pulling its forces out of South Korea? As in, weakening the defenses of the South in anticipation of an invasion? Hrm... Well, if the US wants to provoke the North into invading the South, you have just cause for your army swooping in to invade the North and would very much have the backing of other nations. They're pretty much inviting the North to invade... so you know they won't do it.
Just because the North Koreans are basing a lot of troops on the southern border is not truly indicative of invasion. Considering the way they're flaunting their missile program, I'd go so far as to say that those troops are there to deter the Americans from invading them.
[QUOTE=Zelgadis]I'm well aware of their forces, but the outcome would inevitably be a US-South Korean victory. The first thirty minutes of the war would be the only part with question marks, after that all except N Korea's ground forces would likely be expended or defeated. With the advantage of a preemptive strike, casualties will be greatly reduced from what would happen if N Korea attacks first.[/QUOTE]
That's rather an arrogant assumption. It seemed like it would be an inevitable US-South Koren victory decades ago, but wasn't. It probably depends on if China's going to give them a helping hand again. But frankly, letting the North Koreans invade first is more strategically sound. If they want to win quickly, they'll push fast and overstretch themselves, making it easier for their forces to be routed. Whittle down their forces against defenders. It may be more costly, but in the long-run it would make invading the North much easier.
Frankly, I think it's not going to come to this. War? Possible but not likely. Yes, the US may be withdrawing troops from South Korea and leaving them a little more vulnerable, and yes the North Koreans have been testing their long-range missiles without regard to the shouts of other nations (and exercising their sovereignty; that's for you, Fiona [and it is true, of course]), and yes, the size of their military is quite impressive and proves what kind of threat North Korea is. But it's all posturing. North Korea is flexing its muscles, proving to the world it is a power to be reckoned with. If they develop long-range ballistic missiles, they will be able to say they have them; if they use them, they'd not only lose them, but possibly considerably more, and that's not advantageous to them. Even if the North Koreans built ICBMs with nuclear warheads, they wouldn't use them; it would just turn into an inevitable stand-off like the Soviet Union put NATO through decades ago. Kim Jong-Il is rattling his sabre; George W. Bush is rattling his back. They keep thinking the other is insane enough or dumb enough to make the first move against the other, but all it will really lead to is waiting, not war.
A sovereign nation? Seriously, sovereign? That's just unheard of.
[QUOTE=Fiona]The plan is that 5,000 US troops will leave South Korea this year, 3,000 next year, 2,000 in 2006, and 2,500 in 2007 and 2008.
That will leave a total of about 24,500 troops in the country. [/QUOTE]
So... the US is pulling its forces out of South Korea? As in, weakening the defenses of the South in anticipation of an invasion? Hrm... Well, if the US wants to provoke the North into invading the South, you have just cause for your army swooping in to invade the North and would very much have the backing of other nations. They're pretty much inviting the North to invade... so you know they won't do it.
Just because the North Koreans are basing a lot of troops on the southern border is not truly indicative of invasion. Considering the way they're flaunting their missile program, I'd go so far as to say that those troops are there to deter the Americans from invading them.
[QUOTE=Zelgadis]I'm well aware of their forces, but the outcome would inevitably be a US-South Korean victory. The first thirty minutes of the war would be the only part with question marks, after that all except N Korea's ground forces would likely be expended or defeated. With the advantage of a preemptive strike, casualties will be greatly reduced from what would happen if N Korea attacks first.[/QUOTE]
That's rather an arrogant assumption. It seemed like it would be an inevitable US-South Koren victory decades ago, but wasn't. It probably depends on if China's going to give them a helping hand again. But frankly, letting the North Koreans invade first is more strategically sound. If they want to win quickly, they'll push fast and overstretch themselves, making it easier for their forces to be routed. Whittle down their forces against defenders. It may be more costly, but in the long-run it would make invading the North much easier.
Frankly, I think it's not going to come to this. War? Possible but not likely. Yes, the US may be withdrawing troops from South Korea and leaving them a little more vulnerable, and yes the North Koreans have been testing their long-range missiles without regard to the shouts of other nations (and exercising their sovereignty; that's for you, Fiona
[and it is true, of course]), and yes, the size of their military is quite impressive and proves what kind of threat North Korea is. But it's all posturing. North Korea is flexing its muscles, proving to the world it is a power to be reckoned with. If they develop long-range ballistic missiles, they will be able to say they have them; if they use them, they'd not only lose them, but possibly considerably more, and that's not advantageous to them. Even if the North Koreans built ICBMs with nuclear warheads, they wouldn't use them; it would just turn into an inevitable stand-off like the Soviet Union put NATO through decades ago. Kim Jong-Il is rattling his sabre; George W. Bush is rattling his back. They keep thinking the other is insane enough or dumb enough to make the first move against the other, but all it will really lead to is waiting, not war.General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
[QUOTE=Zelgadis]I'm well aware of their forces, but the outcome would inevitably be a US-South Korean victory. The first thirty minutes of the war would be the only part with question marks, after that all except N Korea's ground forces would likely be expended or defeated. With the advantage of a preemptive strike, casualties will be greatly reduced from what would happen if N Korea attacks first.[/QUOTE]
Well - Kim Jong Il has already stated/warned that if attacked, North Korea will retaliate with nuclear strikes. I doubt a potential war with North Korea would ever be conventional meaning like you/we saw in the Iraq x2.
And considering N.Korea has strike capacities into S.Korea, Japan and presumedly the USA with their missiles I have no doubt that an armed conflict would not be initiated from the US lest N.Korea attacks first. Which N.K. have no political or economical reason to do.
Besides - even if going to conventional war, then the US politicians (and military?) thought the excat same thing in Vietnam and - well Iraq. But people still die in Iraq due to resistance pockets, and history has documented Vietnam well.
N.Korea has long been a danger to world peace, and as fable remarked - and others (including myself) have in the past - they pose a real threat, instead of the "Saddam Hussein threat", but as long as N.Korea has nuclear weapons and an apparent willingness to use them, I doubt the US would make any premeptive strike. It would be to costly and to risky - "sitting on a powder barrel playing with fire" type of risky
The N.Korea solution poses a huge problem for the world as a "community", and I doubt any real (safe) progress would be made before China gets enough of N.Korea. Unfortunally - that can take some years yet at least. However, I have no doubt that warfare with N.Korea would be devestating and rank up very high civilian casulties.
Edit: It would also be impossible for the US or others to build up the forces needed for such an effective swift strike towards the N.Korea as you advocate without it being visible. And then I wonder how China would respond as well to such a preemptive strike.
Well - Kim Jong Il has already stated/warned that if attacked, North Korea will retaliate with nuclear strikes. I doubt a potential war with North Korea would ever be conventional meaning like you/we saw in the Iraq x2.
And considering N.Korea has strike capacities into S.Korea, Japan and presumedly the USA with their missiles I have no doubt that an armed conflict would not be initiated from the US lest N.Korea attacks first. Which N.K. have no political or economical reason to do.
Besides - even if going to conventional war, then the US politicians (and military?) thought the excat same thing in Vietnam and - well Iraq. But people still die in Iraq due to resistance pockets, and history has documented Vietnam well.
N.Korea has long been a danger to world peace, and as fable remarked - and others (including myself) have in the past - they pose a real threat, instead of the "Saddam Hussein threat", but as long as N.Korea has nuclear weapons and an apparent willingness to use them, I doubt the US would make any premeptive strike. It would be to costly and to risky - "sitting on a powder barrel playing with fire" type of risky
The N.Korea solution poses a huge problem for the world as a "community", and I doubt any real (safe) progress would be made before China gets enough of N.Korea. Unfortunally - that can take some years yet at least. However, I have no doubt that warfare with N.Korea would be devestating and rank up very high civilian casulties.
Edit: It would also be impossible for the US or others to build up the forces needed for such an effective swift strike towards the N.Korea as you advocate without it being visible. And then I wonder how China would respond as well to such a preemptive strike.
Insert signature here.
-
Fiona
Once again let me say I am not defending the regime in North Korea. But I do find it strange that they are criticised for actions which seem to suggest they entirely accept the theories which uphold the retention of nuclear weapons in the existing nuclear nations.
As I quoted above, George Bush made it very plain that he believes he is justified in taking action, up to an including war, against the nations he considers pose a threat to the US. His government went on to demonstrate he means what he says by invading Iraq. Leaving aside the motives (whether oil or democracy or whatever), consider the way that looks from Iran and North Korea. It is not unreasonable for them to fear they are next. As the US claims to believe that deterrence is effective, it would be thoroughly irresponsible of any government which has the capability not to demonstrate they have the means to deter an avowedly aggressive power. It is helpful to remember that people are quite similar in many ways across the world. If we have nuclear weapons for defence and deterrence we should at least consider the possibility that they think the same way. And they have far better reason to fear invasion than we do, on the basis of what Mr Bush has said, surely?
@ Chu and Zelgadis. This assumption of quick and easy victory in war is frankly terrifying. Are you sure it will all be over by Xmas?
As I quoted above, George Bush made it very plain that he believes he is justified in taking action, up to an including war, against the nations he considers pose a threat to the US. His government went on to demonstrate he means what he says by invading Iraq. Leaving aside the motives (whether oil or democracy or whatever), consider the way that looks from Iran and North Korea. It is not unreasonable for them to fear they are next. As the US claims to believe that deterrence is effective, it would be thoroughly irresponsible of any government which has the capability not to demonstrate they have the means to deter an avowedly aggressive power. It is helpful to remember that people are quite similar in many ways across the world. If we have nuclear weapons for defence and deterrence we should at least consider the possibility that they think the same way. And they have far better reason to fear invasion than we do, on the basis of what Mr Bush has said, surely?
@ Chu and Zelgadis. This assumption of quick and easy victory in war is frankly terrifying. Are you sure it will all be over by Xmas?
-
ch85us2001
- Posts: 8748
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:53 pm
- Location: My mind dwells elsewhere . . .
[QUOTE=Fiona]@ Chu and Zelgadis. This assumption of quick and easy victory in war is frankly terrifying. Are you sure it will all be over by Xmas?[/QUOTE]
If we were smart about it, yes.
Now, if we do what we did fifty years ago, we'll be in there forever.
If we were smart about it, yes.
Now, if we do what we did fifty years ago, we'll be in there forever.
[url=tamriel-rebuilt.org]Tamriel Rebuilt and,[/url] [url="http://z13.invisionfree.com/Chus_Mod_Forum/index.php?"]My Mod Fansite[/url]
I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
It could be over for all of man kind, is what it could be. Quick yes, a quick death for us all.
And He whispered to me in the darkness as we lay together, Tell Me where to touch you so that I can drive you insane; tell Me where to touch you to give you ultimate pleasure, tell Me where to touch you so that we will truly own each other. And I kissed Him softly and whispered back, Touch my mind.
-
ch85us2001
- Posts: 8748
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:53 pm
- Location: My mind dwells elsewhere . . .
[QUOTE=Ashen]It could be over for all of man kind, is what it could be. Quick yes, a quick death for us all.[/QUOTE]
Only for people in Major cities. The others would die a slow death from radiation poisoning.
Only for people in Major cities. The others would die a slow death from radiation poisoning.
[url=tamriel-rebuilt.org]Tamriel Rebuilt and,[/url] [url="http://z13.invisionfree.com/Chus_Mod_Forum/index.php?"]My Mod Fansite[/url]
I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
[QUOTE=ch85us2001]Only for people in Major cities. The others would die a slow death from radiation poisoning.[/QUOTE]
There's a cheering thought.
There's a cheering thought.
And He whispered to me in the darkness as we lay together, Tell Me where to touch you so that I can drive you insane; tell Me where to touch you to give you ultimate pleasure, tell Me where to touch you so that we will truly own each other. And I kissed Him softly and whispered back, Touch my mind.
-
Chimaera182
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:00 am
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Fiona]@ Chu and Zelgadis. This assumption of quick and easy victory in war is frankly terrifying. Are you sure it will all be over by Xmas?[/QUOTE]
They said the same thing about WW1 once; everyone on both sides thought it would be over quickly and easily, before Christmas. Then again, they were all used to small, localized wars which did actually expire quickly. I just thought that when I saw your above quote.
But if war does come, it will most definitely not be quick. The Hussein regime was in place for how long now? And how long as North Korea been a communist state? You're talking quite a long time for both, almost double that for the Koreans; to change that overnight will garner quite a lot of hostility. If the U.S. did invade, it would take a year or two before actual victory would be declared; maybe 5 more to quell the violent resistance.
[QUOTE=Ashen]It could be over for all of man kind, is what it could be. Quick yes, a quick death for us all.[/QUOTE]
That's a bit melodramatic. Just because the North Koreans have threatened to retaliate with nuclear weapons doesn't mean they can; they've not exactly made many inroads to discovering the secrets of such weapons (the missile test being one of them).
They said the same thing about WW1 once; everyone on both sides thought it would be over quickly and easily, before Christmas. Then again, they were all used to small, localized wars which did actually expire quickly. I just thought that when I saw your above quote.
But if war does come, it will most definitely not be quick. The Hussein regime was in place for how long now? And how long as North Korea been a communist state? You're talking quite a long time for both, almost double that for the Koreans; to change that overnight will garner quite a lot of hostility. If the U.S. did invade, it would take a year or two before actual victory would be declared; maybe 5 more to quell the violent resistance.
[QUOTE=Ashen]It could be over for all of man kind, is what it could be. Quick yes, a quick death for us all.[/QUOTE]
That's a bit melodramatic. Just because the North Koreans have threatened to retaliate with nuclear weapons doesn't mean they can; they've not exactly made many inroads to discovering the secrets of such weapons (the missile test being one of them).
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
-
Fiona