NK succeeds ICBM Test for 4th of July
- Thread starter LoneRanger
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: CT8
Because the Stupid American taxpayers are happy to pay and pay and pay.
your comment is utterly regrettable because Wayne will be along in about fifteen seconds to apply Loctite on account of what you just said.
Because the Stupid American taxpayers are happy to pay and pay and pay.
your comment is utterly regrettable because Wayne will be along in about fifteen seconds to apply Loctite on account of what you just said.
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Do you realise that South Korea has 3 times the population and an economy 100 times bigger than the North. Why can't they take care of themselves. As I said the only reason we're here now is because the US is still there after 60 years.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
If we did not have troops there this would not have happened. We should have pulled out 20 years ago.
Do you think South Korea would still exist if we left there in 1997?
South Korea would no longer exist simply because they would have taken over North Korea.
There would today only be Korea.
South Korea has double the population of the North and has the eleventh largest economy in the world.
North Korea has the 125th largest economy in the world.
Were a war to have happened twenty years ago, please tell me how the North wouldn't have been destroyed?
South Korea has been both babied and crippled by the presence of the US.
Were US forces not present in Korea, the South Koreans would have had to invest more money and manpower in defense.
Instead, they're free to invest these resources in cheap cars, tires, appliances and phone handsets sold in the US.
South Korea was more than able to stand up for itself twenty years ago. Too bad we didn't make it do so.
It's easy for armchair strategists so say "how easy" it would be for the South to take the North because it's not your capital city that thousands of well placed artillery batteries could rain down shells on killing thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands, in the opening minutes or hours of the war. I'm not sure what both of your points are. South Korea is more militarily powerful than the North, this is correct. With or without U.S. forces they have one of the more powerful militaries in Asia, but this is relatively recent and even "20 years ago" there was a military parity that the years of aging North Korean hardware and burgeoning ROK economy has begun to erase. I don't know what we're blaming them for. They now outspend the North on defense and would probably defeat the North after a prolonged, bloody struggle. But it would still be a bloodbath for thousands of South Koreans and there is a good chance the DPRK could take Seoul only to be dislodged after intensive fighting and massive casualties on both sides featuring an opening spasm of violence that would surpass the initial battles of WWII. Then, there's also the prospect of having to merge a economically, culturally and socially backward nation that would possibly bankrupt the South for many decades to come. I'm not sure how anyone could expect the South to be eager to conquer the North...
Whether or not the U.S. has troops in the ROK, they North is still trying to develop and build nukes and ICBMs...
Do you realise that South Korea has 3 times the population and an economy 100 times bigger than the North. Why can't they take care of themselves. As I said the only reason we're here now is because the US is still there after 60 years.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
If we did not have troops there this would not have happened. We should have pulled out 20 years ago.
Do you think South Korea would still exist if we left there in 1997?
South Korea would no longer exist simply because they would have taken over North Korea.
There would today only be Korea.
South Korea has double the population of the North and has the eleventh largest economy in the world.
North Korea has the 125th largest economy in the world.
Were a war to have happened twenty years ago, please tell me how the North wouldn't have been destroyed?
South Korea has been both babied and crippled by the presence of the US.
Were US forces not present in Korea, the South Koreans would have had to invest more money and manpower in defense.
Instead, they're free to invest these resources in cheap cars, tires, appliances and phone handsets sold in the US.
South Korea was more than able to stand up for itself twenty years ago. Too bad we didn't make it do so.
It's easy for armchair strategists so say "how easy" it would be for the South to take the North because it's not your capital city that thousands of well placed artillery batteries could rain down shells on killing thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands, in the opening minutes or hours of the war. I'm not sure what both of your points are. South Korea is more militarily powerful than the North, this is correct. With or without U.S. forces they have one of the more powerful militaries in Asia, but this is relatively recent and even "20 years ago" there was a military parity that the years of aging North Korean hardware and burgeoning ROK economy has begun to erase. I don't know what we're blaming them for. They now outspend the North on defense and would probably defeat the North after a prolonged, bloody struggle. But it would still be a bloodbath for thousands of South Koreans and there is a good chance the DPRK could take Seoul only to be dislodged after intensive fighting and massive casualties on both sides featuring an opening spasm of violence that would surpass the initial battles of WWII. Then, there's also the prospect of having to merge a economically, culturally and socially backward nation that would possibly bankrupt the South for many decades to come. I'm not sure how anyone could expect the South to be eager to conquer the North...
Whether or not the U.S. has troops in the ROK, they North is still trying to develop and build nukes and ICBMs...
- Status
