Basically, because I was seriously bored of the SD of SEN, I decided to see what people thought about North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs. North Korea basically already has nuclear capability and is practicing making bigger balloons to carry them to other countries, and Iran has the missiles down (but no ICBM capability) and is working on getting their nukes working.

Personally, I believe that while they theoretically have the same right to nukes as anyone else, the countries' specific personalities (similarly to India, Israel and Pakistan) make me want to deny them the right to have nuclear weapons. I don't know if Iran supports terrorists, but just in case it does, I don't want it to have nukes; I know North Korea's a relative hellhole and shouldn't be rewarded with respect for it. Also, the US and Russia having an essential monopoly on advanced nuclear technology makes me feel all special inside. I'm also not a strong supporter of 'Everyone should have nukes', because the more nuke-possessing countries there are, the larger the chance that some madman will sneak in and press the big red button.

Personally I find it foolish for North Korea to invest money into a nuclear program seeing how they are in poverty. To make North Korea look worse, you can see South Korea's technological advancements with Samsung and LG.

Well, lets see, one of the countries is run by the very racist and backwards Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, arguably one of the worst leaders in our current world. Next, we have Kim Jong Il, who could have used that money to fix up some economical or domestic problems, instead of wasting it on something America has about at least thousands of by now.

but hey, at least his name is far easier to spell then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I'm already against nukes to begin with, they bastardized Einsteins theories and used them to create the most devastating weapons of today. Just testing the nukes alone are destructive, probably killing a lot of wild life.
Some could argue "for the greater good" but lets face it, what good is going to come out of nukes? Killing a bunch of innocent civilians just to end a war quicker?

How about, we forget about the civilians, forget about using quick shortcuts to end our conflicts. and above all, let only those willing to die for our country die.

You guys seem to miss that North Korea's residents are practically in the dark about what's going on in the world...Take the perspective of Kim Jong II

If the economy isn't effecting me, then why fix it?

*affecting, not effecting. Effect is a noun, affect is a verb.

It's actually sad how impoverished NK is. I'm almost in favor of letting SK take a shot at reuniting the peninsula. The North Korean people would probably actually join the South if the invaders gave them food, unless they really are brainwashed. I question the dedication of North Korea's army. I wonder if they're a real army or more like Middle Eastern armies. Big on paper, but always fall apart when bullets start flying.

I would expect that North Korea's a teeeeeny version of the USSR, and the military is essentially made for relatively large-scale conflicts. Probably has an emphasis on artillery and numbers at the expense of quality. I'm not sure about this, but I would actually say that unless their dictators are really bad at what they do, North Korea should be able to defeat South Korea, despite the common perception that South Korea is eons ahead of North Korea. After all, North Korea's missile technology isn't bad, and I would assume After fifty years of brainwashing, the North Korean people should be extremely wary of the south, and if the radios and other such equipment transmit some horrors about what the South is doing to captured Northerners, they'll fight to the end.

Here's what I found on wikipedia source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army_Ground_Force . I know it's Wikipedia and very inaccurate in military things, but I'm too lazy to look up the specifics on better websites. According to Wikipedia, they have ~2k fifty-year old tanks. Assuming that they kept the tanks alive, that might be enough. Actually, just checked, if the wikipedia article on south korea is remotely accurate, they have 3x the stuff the North has, so I might be completely wrong here. I really think that North Korea isn't the paper-mache kitty it's painted to be, though.

If that were true, South Korea wouldnt have been drafting for the last 50 years, now nearing 60.

But on the brightside, North Korea barely has any fuel to fuel all their tanks, and most of their warmachines are low on maintenance- thus unreliable in combat (also they are relatively, and largely low tech compared to their South counterparts)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 12 2009, 2:30 am by BeDazed.

I don't believe North Korea shows off its army or gives accurate figures. It's possible that they have nothing more than what we've seen; in that case, the draft was unnecessary. However, more likely, they have much more.
I would expect that North Korea has large reserves of fuel (they were supported by the USSR, which had so much it didn't really value it). I could be wrong, though, but where did you get that?

As for low-maintenance, we also don't know for sure about that. Maybe, because they don't actually replace anything due to a lack of funds, they provide good maintenance using the money instead. However, yes, it's generally low-tech.

Well, not exactly unnecessary. It is known that the North Koreans draft also, which means it is important that we match the number.

Also, that isn't so true. There are border crossing North Koreans (often at the risk of getting shot)- to escape poverty. Why would they think that the outside world would be any different if they were so blind about what was going on in the world?

The US has a sizable military presence in Korea, and North Korea knows that if it attacks, retaliation will follow that it won't be able to match. The draft isn't necessary.

Because some know, doesn't mean most know. Chances are, most are brainwashed.

Well you may think like this, but drafting has been accepted as a 'tradition' to most South Koreans- considering its nearly 60 year history. It's like a 'manhood' thing for males in Korea.

Irrelevant. Unnecessary is unnecessary. Culture isn't an excuse to force people into an army unnecessarily.

Rather, it is not unnecessary. There are only thousands of Americans stationed in South Korea, while there are just as many howitzers stationed in North Korea pointed directly at Seoul- and their active army in the million. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea ) and ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops )
And if you take a look at the statistics of active and reserve, we'd just get overrun- no matter how advanced our technology is- without drafting.

With the arsenal of the US ready to punish North Korea if it got too bold, the draft is unnecessary.

Let's not speculate about this; it's pointless. We don't know North Korea's strength, and we're both using Wikipedia as a source. We don't know how much US troops are stationed in South Korea, or how an old T-55 would fare against a current South Korean tank. Either way, this isn't exactly a thread for this discussion.

l2logistics.
We have the capability to utilize many more, much more advanced technologies. For example, Predator missiles can really change the tide of a war. And we can deploy them very easily.

Edit:
By logistics, I mean we can quickly deploy a large number of highly trained, well equipped troops. Not to mention it would be North Korea alone against many nations. China would refuse to back them due to their economic ties with the US, and pretty much every moderately important country in Southeast Asia (and every major military power in Europe, and NATO) would help the US. NK attacking SK would actually be a righteous war --- unlike the Iraq War, and even in that many foreign troops aided the Americans.

You are saying draft is 'unnecessary' for koreans, which provokes my attention. The arsenal of US is thousands of miles away, when will it get here? Months. Do you think flying an ICBM with a nuke to North Korea is acceptable? No. It is not, not in the least bit acceptable- to neither the World nor Korea. Then who will defend against a million active duty troops? The drafteds, obviously- and they will have to for a few months before your 'arsenal' comes to help. It doesn't matter how strong US is, it just happen to matter that if North Korea goes bold, there will be alot more than 'necessary' deaths and losses without a sizeable army- which South Korea wouldn't be able to support without drafting. Just because your 'freedom' sentiments work in the US, doesn't mean it works in South Korea. To South Koreans, drafting is just as necessary as burgers are for you.

For the record, I haven't eaten a burger in maybe eleven years. Yay me.

I'll repeat, a draft is unnecessary. Not only is a decent-pay volunteer army mixed with the manhood-if-in-army culture a viable alternative, but South Korea needs one thing to defend itself: A nuclear weapon. Thirdly, even if South Korea had nothing, North Korea wouldn't attack because it would be attacked. Like a nuclear weapon is deterrent, so is having everyone not want North Korea attacking South Korea a deterrent.

The Army Chief of Staff has stated that the US has approximately 10 heavy brigades (about one division; 40,000-ish soldiers) of a mix of Marines and Army ready to be deployed anywhere worldwide within thirty days. 40,000 highly trained American heavy brigades, combined with an emergency South Korean draft (which there would be one if North Korea attacked, duh) would be enough to tide back any attack that is currently believed capable by the North Koreans. The combined American and South Korean (and certainly Japanese, though they have a weak military) ground forces (not to mention conventional explosive strikes by American bombers) would be able to tide back a North Korean attack until the large majority of US military might could be mobilized, and the South Korean and Japanese militaries could become fully organized.

... What makes you think that 40,000 can take on a minimum of 1,000,000 North Koreans with tanks, artillery, an air force and a navy?

In about four days the Americans can pretty much have air and sea supremacy. Long range bombing = pain in the ass for advancing armies.
And I did not state the 40,000 would be enough. I'm assuming South Korean could mobilize at least 250,000 troops. And this is in a conventional, non-nuclear war (because the US has even stated that any weapon of mass destruction used on its people will result in pretty much total war) and I'm hoping those ~300,000 could hold off the North Koreans until the majority of the US military could be mobilized.