Korea - 'The Forgotten War'

[Ivan]

[quote]
Don't know how much truth there is in what the Russian had to say, but he seemed to be honest kind of a bloke. He certainly wasn't your "stereo-typical" Russian communist (of which I don't think there are very many). He was all to willing to give credit where it was due.
I think (not sure, have to check) that later in the series he rubbishes the later MiGs a bit. I recall he refers to one as a "carbon copy' of the American version. Maybe the one that's the same as the F14 (again, I think).

[ATI_7500]

Why is North Korea a problem? okay ,they've got nuclear weapons,but they surely won't use them. they are just a medium to emphasize the meaning of NK. those guys there don't have money,they are practically ruined. so they build a few nuclear weapons and say:"ho,ho,cowboys,we've got nukes. respect us and give us money!". if they used their nukes,they'd be as good as dead.

[Oz]

Actually North Korea is a very big threat. For one they aint afraid to use their stuff, and would be very eager to launch attacks into Japan or the south. The lunatic who runs NK diverts all the money into the military. Yeah, youll see the civilian population is in ruins, but that military is tough. But the governments got money all right....and they make some more with the missle selling business not even the US wants to stop.. Even if they used the nukes yes theyd all be dead but not after they make the first move. As a matter of fact NK is a bigger threat than certain middle east countries which have or have not yet been invaded. If you take out a book on the Korean war or watch a series on it or anything of the sort, youll note that it was one of the bloodiest wars of the 20th century. And NK wouldnt be afraid to start a war...theyd be eager to believe it or not. With all the years in between the korean war and now, theyve not only made their military stronger and created nuclear weapons (which of course is illegal..) but may also have the means to deliver them. If time goes on and NK is not stop, IMHO, they'll be closer and closer to making an ICBM.

[Ivan]

They already have a missile which can go past Japan... how far is something the US government won't tell to keep the support of the public IF they take armed action against them.

Don't forget the DPRK has a standing army of one million soldiers, and can probably double that number in an emergency. They will fight by numbers, not by the strenght of their equipment (the only airforce in the world still flying MiG-19's on a dayly basis)

The difference with the 'certain middle east countries' (iran, lybia) is that N-Korea WILL attack with nuclear weapons if driven in a corner, while the mideast countries probably won't risk nuclear suicide.

if Iraq wasnt taken during the 91 war it wouldnt have to happen now

If the US intelligence had any idea of the pressure imposed on the various dissident groups the case would haven been closed in 1991, and a lot of lives could have been spared and a lot of war trauma's avoided.

[Oz]

yep, if a war would ever begin they would quickly even force the civilian population to join the military. It would be a bloody war, without a doubt. The thing with NK is that its really the stain of asia. Get rid of it, and asia will be left 'clean', just like Europe after Hitler and Stalin. The only thing left would be the middle east and Africa, and that might take some time....

[Ivan]

MAD again or a nuclear winter?

Who's gonna decide...

[Craig.]

be very  careful we are heading towards the poilitical thread here which will end up being shut down

[Oz]

be very  careful we are heading towards the poilitical thread here which will end up being shut down  

yes i agree but so far we are following the 'korea' guidelines and anything associated

[Felix/FFDS]

at this time , the discussion has not been on the "political" rightness/wrongness of the issue, but rather - as I see it - the perceived threat.  

So far as everyone agrees that my ideas, and positions on issues are obviously the correct ones, I'm not having problems....

yes i agree but so far we are following the 'korea' guidelines and anything associated

[Wing Nut]

I can't speak to wether or not N Korea is actually a greater threat, but I do know this; When I was there in 85-86 the big man was Kim Il Sung and everyone was afraid that when he died his son (Kim Jong Il) would be twice as bad.  People lived in constant fear of that day.  Now he has been in power some years and that fear has yet to be justified, but from the look of things (to quote Hank Hill)  that boy ani't right...

[ATI_7500]

...created nuclear weapons (which of course is illegal..)....

oh,then,the USA and russia have illegal nukes,too.  ;)

[Professor Brensec]

Well, it would seem that the thread has gone a bit wayward!
But then who am I to talk about sending a topic reeling off on a tangent?...............lol I've probably done it myself a hundred times!

I agree with Felix in that the thread hasn't gotten to the 'naughty' stage yet, but I think when we start to talk about blowing up a particular country, maybe we're in danger of upsetting someone (perhaps the people from that country?).

As for the US having nuclear weapons (I assume illegal by certain treaties, is what was meant). They have been around for nearly 60 years now, and during the entire 'cold war', Korea, Vietnam and Middle east conflicts and every 'blood boiling' act of terrorism directed at the US or it's people around the world, they have never even threatened to use them (seriously, at least).
This record in itself, is enough for me to support the concept of the US being (albeit self-appointed) the major peacekeeper of the world, if you like, as the UN has shown recently how very ineffective it is and the disdain with which some governments treat it's resolutions. I believe there is a need for a trustworthy, level-headed, honest country (as the US has proven to be over the years) to maintain a small arsenal of Nukes to guard against those that would use them if the 'mutual annihilation' concept did not exist.
Let's face it. It's not an easy job and someone has to do it. The losses suffered by the US in the two recent Gulf conflicts and Afghanistan (let alone previous, more 'popular' wars) to free other nations from despots and dictators, is testimony enough to the cost of the position. I imagine that's why Australia has always been at their side whenever needed. Without exception.

[Ivan]

As for the US having nuclear weapons (I assume illegal by certain treaties, is what was meant).

Those treaties ont make it illegal to have them, only illegal to use them in a first-strike situation, but as the US stepped out of it to make THAADS possible they in my view don't have the right to complain about it anymore.

They have been around for nearly 60 years now, and during the entire 'cold war', Korea, Vietnam and Middle east conflicts and every 'blood boiling' act of terrorism directed at the US or it's people around the world, they have never even threatened to use them (seriously, at least).

as there were soviet satelites looking fo the exhaust plumes, and given a trigger-happy soviet general, WW3 would have been started if they had launched one of the missiles.
And as most of the confilicst in the cold war era basically were between the US (and allies) and states allied to the soviet block, it would have easily degraded into a big war between NATO and the soviet block.

as the UN has shown recently how very ineffective it is and the disdain with which some governments treat it's resolutions.

and peacekeeping missions being unable to use armed force if the population the are supposed to protect is being decimated before their eyes because the UN has to get the security council together to decide IF they can use armed force...

trustworthy, level-headed, honest country

err...

if the 'mutual annihilation' concept did not exist.

MAD died in 1991, together with the soviet union

The losses suffered by the US in the two recent Gulf conflicts and Afghanistan

losses mostly caused by blue-on blue and mechanical defects...

to free other nations from despots and dictators

with all the TV watching the thing only from the American side, and not from the recieving end...
Someone i know was on the recieving end in 1991. If you had seen the fear in her eyes after the first strikes on baghdad in 2003, would you think otherwise about the matter??

Im going off-topic...

[ATI_7500]

i totally agree to Ivan. we cant live with the "USA ,Britain: good;Russia,Iran,Communists:bad;rest of the world:stupid" picture forever.
but that's just my opinion and now:shoot me,hang me,kill me!  ::)

[Oz]

maybe we're in danger of upsetting someone (perhaps the people from that country?).

I dont think North Koreans even have access to computers....