The US has a military budget six times larger than China, and in a top 20 in military budgets, the size of the US military budget alone could take on the 19 runner up's. With that kind of size disparaties in budgets, number of soldier's doesn't really matter, because the difference in equipment is going to be felt quite heavily.

 

 

 

That's true and the United States army will reign supreme for at least a decade or so. But once countries like India and China get wealthier (they already have billions of surplus money unlike the US which is $8 trillion in debt) they will have access to superior technology and training methods as well.

 

 

 

That and the sheer insane amount of population in their respective countries, I'm quite sure China still could afford risking 1000 moderately trained soldiers to take out 100 special-op forces, and USA would still be the first one to lose all their good troops. Heck, even the Taleban can kill elite NATO soldiers to a ratio of about 15:1 (meaning they lose the 15 obviously...), and some of them are literally peasants who just went to a bootcamp for 3 months in a hot desert.

Because they are practicing their right to do what they want, without someone hypocritically pointing out that they shouldn't be arming themselves/developing their nuclear weapon technology.

 

 

 

I personally hope that North Korea carry on doing whatever they are doing, God knows that if anyone tried to tell a Western country what to do, they would be on a political/justice crusade faster than China's economy is growing.

 

 

 

Are you actually comparing North Korea to Western couuntries? Freedom is overrated, anyway!

Yeah, I am.

 

 

 

If Western countries can place themselves into Iraq and try to force a system of democracy, are they not measuring Iraq's downfalls relative to their own system (democracy), ergo comparing the two? I know we aren't talking about Iraq right now, but the list of Countries that need our help goes on and on and in another year or two we will be helping another out of their terrible situation.

 

 

 

Everyone can talk about their 'freedom' but what have you really got? The right to talk about absolutely anything, unless the powers that be don't like it? Thats not freedom in my books, it looks alot like it, but as soon as you push the boundaries it looks more like a marketing ploy.

 

 

 

In essence, what right has any Western country got to say that North Korea can't have Nuclear weapons, or any Country for that matter, when they have Nuclear weapons themselves?

 

 

 

The only answer to the above answer that I recall is that it is potentially dangerous if they have them, but does no one see the hypocrisy of that?

Yeah, I am.

 

 

 

If Western countries can place themselves into Iraq and try to force a system of democracy, are they not measuring Iraq's downfalls relative to their own system (democracy), ergo comparing the two? I know we aren't talking about Iraq right now, but the list of Countries that need our help goes on and on and in another year or two we will be helping another out of their terrible situation.

 

 

 

Everyone can talk about their 'freedom' but what have you really got? The right to talk about absolutely anything, unless the powers that be don't like it? Thats not freedom in my books, it looks alot like it, but as soon as you push the boundaries it looks more like a marketing ploy.

 

 

 

In essence, what right has any Western country got to say that North Korea can't have Nuclear weapons, or any Country for that matter, when they have Nuclear weapons themselves?

 

 

 

The only answer to the above answer that I recall is that it is potentially dangerous if they have them, but does no one see the hypocrisy of that?

 

 

 

You show very little knowledge about North Korea. North Korea leaves their population in absolute poverty, they have places in the country that no one is allowed to visit for fear that what North Korea is really like will be exposed to the world.

 

 

 

There is no way you can compare North Korea to Western countries and be sane about it.

 

 

 

Not to mention that Western countries - America included, are disarming their nukes. At least, we're being told they are so that's all we can assume. It makes sense to not want anyone else to develop nukes while we're disarming. Not to mention countries like north korea.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with Iraq, imposing democracy, or anything like that. North Korea is a country that should not have nuclear weapons.

Thats fair enough, I hadn't heard that Western countries disarming, and if they are, then it is quite understandable that they don't want other countries to have them. Still seems as though Western countries are calling the shots a little though?

Thats fair enough, I hadn't heard that Western countries disarming, and if they are, then it is quite understandable that they don't want other countries to have them. Still seems as though Western countries are calling the shots a little though?

 

 

 

No, not really. Japan and China seem to have just as much influence as the Western countries do. If the Western countries were "calling the shots," why would that be a bad thing? In a global world, does someone need to call the shots? Or at least, a group of people?

I feel we are disgressing slightly, and your knowledge on these matters is evidently greater than mine, so lets leave it.

 

 

 

But my last thought would be that these groups of people do not always have justice as their number one concern, in my opinion, alot of them committ their actions to retain political and economic dominance, but i know this can't be proven, and whether this is acceptable is matter of opinion as well.

I think you missed the point. If North Korea is stupid enough to launch a nuke, or openly gives a terrorist organisation the means by which to do so, the US and everyone else who can will turn North Korea into one big glowing crater.

 

 

 

Oh, I know the retaliation would be of epic proportions if they started using nukes. My point was, because of it's geographical location, it is impossible to be a lake.

That and the sheer insane amount of population in their respective countries, I'm quite sure China still could afford risking 1000 moderately trained soldiers to take out 100 special-op forces, and USA would still be the first one to lose all their good troops. Heck, even the Taleban can kill elite NATO soldiers to a ratio of about 15:1 (meaning they lose the 15 obviously...), and some of them are literally peasants who just went to a bootcamp for 3 months in a hot desert.

 

 

 

There's a considerable difference between being able to kill a soldier in your own country, and defending your capability to wage war. Any idiot can kill a single soldier using household supplies and your average bomb guide off the 'net. Actually crippling a well oiled war machinery of a nation with that kind of military budget? Yeah, right.

 

 

 

 

 

As for democracy... Democracy has two major things going for it that is often neglected, neither having to do anything with "freedom" or "justice". First of all, there's the whole war thing. Look up how many democratic states have declared war on other democratic states. Or just name an example off the top of your head. Secondly, there's something as mundane as food. Democratic governments don't let their citizens starve. For some weird reason, a democratic government that doesn't have a civil war, ethnic cleansing or some other odd crap going on internally, usually manages to feed it's citizens as well. Again, look it up. How many democratic countries - without wide-spread corruption, civil war etcetc. - experience famines?

Because the North Koreans are tired of taking crap from the US. Why the hell should the US have the right to say you can't test nukes because we're afraid we can't bully you once you have the ability to own us?

All people (and contries) with power fear losing that power. North Korea has thretend the US's power, and nothing good has ever come from thretening the United States. The US really needs a new presadent. Bush is incredibly religious, hes is fighting a holy war in a way.

All people (and contries) with power fear losing that power. North Korea has thretend the US's power, and nothing good has ever come from thretening the United States. The US really needs a new presadent. Bush is incredibly religious, hes is fighting a holy war in a way.

 

 

 

Bush is definitely NOT fighting a Holy war. There is no indication whatsoever that the War on Terrorism (you didn't specify which war, and since there isn't a war between the US and North Korea, I assumed this is what you are talking about) is religiously motivated.

Sorry, slight reference to Iraq and Afghanastan acualy. Perhaps riding the world of Muslims. Bush is really quite religious, thats how he got all the religious votes. He is Fundamentalist christian (born again). Religin changed his life by solving his drinking problem.

All people (and contries) with power fear losing that power. North Korea has thretend the US's power, and nothing good has ever come from thretening the United States. The US really needs a new presadent. Bush is incredibly religious, hes is fighting a holy war in a way.

 

 

 

Bush is definitly NOT fighting a Holy war. There is no indication whatsoever that the War on Terrorism (you didn't specify which war, and since there isn't a war between the US and North Korea, I assumed this is what you are talking about) is religiously motivated.

 

 

 

Besides the fact Bush himself said they were fighting a crusade. He apologized for the comment, but I think he meant it. Only after he realised the impact of his statement did he correct himself. And it could be seen that Bush is pushing a "holy war" because he is religiously driven leaving him determined to act on his "born again" beliefs. This could be seen as a good or bad thing.. depends on perspective.

 

 

 

One could also argue the fact that Bush tends to wage war with a particular group of people (Muslims), which could be seen as a "holy war".

 

 

 

Randox is right in way.. its all about perspective though.

Oh, I know the retaliation would be of epic proportions if they started using nukes. My point was, because of it's geographical location, it is impossible to be a lake.

 

With sufficient ordnance, anything is possible!

All people (and contries) with power fear losing that power. North Korea has thretend the US's power, and nothing good has ever come from thretening the United States. The US really needs a new presadent. Bush is incredibly religious, hes is fighting a holy war in a way.

 

 

 

Bush is definitly NOT fighting a Holy war. There is no indication whatsoever that the War on Terrorism (you didn't specify which war, and since there isn't a war between the US and North Korea, I assumed this is what you are talking about) is religiously motivated.

 

 

 

Besides the fact Bush himself said they were fighting a crusade. He apologized for the comment, but I think he meant it. Only after he realised the impact of his statement did he correct himself. And it could be seen that Bush is pushing a "holy war" because he is religiously driven leaving him determined to act on his "born again" beliefs. This could be seen as a good or bad thing.. depends on perspective.

 

 

 

 

If Bush is risking the lives of thousands of Americans and inciting resentment from much of the Middle Eastern world for his religious beliefs, then he is no better than other religious fanatics. I gotta say, this has really changed my views on Bush.

 

 

 

I hope Mr. Bush knows what he is doing.

A fundamentalist Christian is not really better than fundamentalist muslim. Although all terorist attacks in the last 15 years resulting in death were carried out by muslims (at least any that made the papers). Bush needs to go before we are in a full blown crusade :ohnoes:

There's a considerable difference between being able to kill a soldier in your own country, and defending your capability to wage war. Any idiot can kill a single soldier using household supplies and your average bomb guide off the 'net. Actually crippling a well oiled war machinery of a nation with that kind of military budget? Yeah, right.

The polish resistance, which consisted of nothing more than civilians, held off advancing russian (i think it's russian anyways) forces for longer than the entire polish army. You give people motive and the means and they can do anything.

 

 

 

Granted they didn't cripple it, but the comparason is still moderately valid when taken into perspective. The "well-oiled war machine" was incapable of crushing a force that was out-maned, out-gunned and in all aspects out-done in practically every possible way.

 

 

 

Having superior anything is somewhat of an invalid argument when you consider that it will not win you anything if you don't have an effective approach for the situation at hand.

 

 

 

Just last month, did about 50-60 US soldiers get killed in Iraq? You put into effect the cost of their training, their weapons, etc. And compare it to what the forces in iraq did and while the US most likely lost less people, the cost per head and signifigantly more. Hence, military budget is also a rather weak form of picking the best military force.

 

 

 

 

 

For all you know most of that money could be getting blown on a space-weapons program, or just simple reasearch into new technologies, anything.

The polish resistance, which consisted of nothing more than civilians, held off advancing russian (i think it's russian anyways) forces for longer than the entire polish army. You give people motive and the means and they can do anything.

 

 

 

Granted they didn't cripple it, but the comparason is still moderately valid when taken into perspective. The "well-oiled war machine" was incapable of crushing a force that was out-maned, out-gunned and in all aspects out-done in practically every possible way.

 

 

 

Taken into perspective Poland was last invaded what, World War II? Modern warfare now isn't the same thing as modern warfare then. Aerial superiority. Laser guided bomb clusters from stealth planes. The first Gulf War killed more than 100 000 iraqi soldiers, while something like 1100 allied soldiers died. And a fair few of those went under due to friendly fire.

 

 

 

For all you know most of that money could be getting blown on a space-weapons program, or just simple reasearch into new technologies, anything.

 

 

 

If my fighters can aquire target locks and fire at a range of 125% of your fighters, your figthers die. The idea that technology doesn't lend a huge edge in warfare is ridicolous, and putting large sums of money into research isn't exactly deterimental to your nations ability to wage ware.

Air superiority is useful and can help you take an objective, but it can't occupy territory. This is where tanks and infantry come in. No matter your military budget, grunts still die to bullets, and tanks and IFVs can still be brought down by cheaper weapons.

 

 

 

Can we get back on topic?

 

 

 

Has it actually been confirmed that NK has nuclear weapons? That 1kT blast could've easily been replicated with 1,000 tons of TNT, might I remind you. NK also has a slight habit of trying to bluff its way past the West, as we've seen in that other thread where photos of Pyongyang were posted.

While all that's true, you actually need results of those investments. It takes a long time before you got a multi-billion dollar weapon system that you can use without it blowing up your own people.

 

 

 

 

 

Modern combat isn't much different than ww2. Even with laser-guided missles and such, you're still acting on inteligence, which when wrong basically kills civilians or your own rather than your enemy. When it comes down to it, humans are always going to be the thing that matters. Even with the technological advantage, if they can't use it effectively, it means nothing.

 

 

 

Some of the best examples of technological advantage meaning nothing when those who have it can't use it effectively is in the past. It would be foolish to think anything has changed since to make it impossible to lose when you're on top of the technology ladder. And do note that you're talking almost equal terms when using aircraft-vs-aircraft.

 

 

 

I deliberately took it one further and put those are further ends of the spectrum against each other because in the past, there have been many instances where the favourite to win didn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there was a bit of redundancy in there but I hope you got my point.

TNT does not leave aradioactive signature anything like a uranium or plutonium nulear warhead (fusion or fission). Assuming that the states arent lying about their finding NK has neclear capability. :ohnoes:

i'm gonna put a view from us ppl in south korea :wink: here the us have a huge hold on south korea, the us army takes up around 90% of the military bases in south korea if the us army left, which they threaten to do south korea is likely to blow up but then again north korea could fire a missile at the capital it would hit in less than a minuite but that would blow north korea up as we would retialite in that minuite but as ppl are to scared to figure this out the us keeps its iron grip on the dividied country

why don't they sell all their research and use that money to cure malnutrition, so everyone is happy, or they could nuke their people so there are less people that need food so there is more food for the rest of the people :twisted:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(sorry i had to say that)

why don't they sell all their research and use that money to cure malnutrition, so everyone is happy, or they could nuke their people so there are less people that need food so there is more food for the rest of the people :twisted:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(sorry i had to say that)

 

 

 

* Server sets mode -foodaid NK

 

 

 

OMG GIV IT BAK!! WUT R U DOIN BRO?!?!?