okay, not really...
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030205/w020586.html
Anyone have any information as to how the US military drafting process works...
Printable View
okay, not really...
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030205/w020586.html
Anyone have any information as to how the US military drafting process works...
four double oh 4
title scared me ;) Thought we were gonna have to woop up on NK
now it works.
Wasn't the draft reinstated? yes? crap, I hope the doesn't escalade...
North Korea is next on our list.
I will volunteer if there is a draft... unlikely situation that it is.
After reading this article, I have a few questions for the "smarter" FK members, who know what they are talking about.
1)Why do North Korea and South Korea hate each other? We were talking about this in school a few days ago, but I was talking to a girl the whole time ( :mrpimp: ) guess I should have payed attention
2)It seems to me that only people in the UN are "allowed" to have nukes, is this true, and why?
3)Why dont we just send some seals, spies, or something in there to find out whats going on?
Quote:
Originally posted by indivision
I will volunteer if there is a draft... unlikely situation that it is.
I was thinking about it too, I would be quite a weiner in battle though, so you might wanna stay on the other side of me ;)
im quite active in this thread....
Korea was occupied by Japan until the end of World War II.Quote:
Originally posted by alty29
1)Why do North Korea and South Korea hate each other?
After World War II, Korea was divided. North Korea became communist, meaning the government controlled land, wealth and industry. In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea, which was allied with several democratic countries. Fearing the spread of communism, the U.S. helped South Korea fight the North.
Other countries were also involved. British, Australian, and Philippine soldiers fought alongside the South Korean army.
After three years of brutal war, the two sides worked out an armistice-- a temporary cease-fire agreement-- on July 27, 1953. The front line was accepted as the boundary between North and South Korea.
The armistice called for an international conference to find a political solution to the problem of Korea's division. This conference met in Geneva, Switzerland in April 1954 but, after seven weeks of futile debate, ended without agreement or progress.
A peace treaty has never been agreed upon.
I think anyone can technically have nuclear weapons but it's not a cheap or easy thing to do. It's not limited to members of NATO/UN. They do make efforts to regulate use/stockpiling but countries such as North Korea are perfectly able to tell them to sod off.Quote:
2)It seems to me that only people in the UN are "allowed" to have nukes, is this true, and why?
I don't think it's quite as easy as that, especially in a country like North Korea. It's effectively closed off to the outside world so a US Navy Seal (I assume you don't mean a sea dwelling seal) would stick out like a sore thumb.Quote:
3)Why dont we just send some seals, spies, or something in there to find out whats going on?
There are defectors from the country who escape to China and South Korea who provide information but the country is truly sealed to all intents and purposes making any sort of ground level spying nearly impossible.
1) I believe there are complex cultural reasons for this divide but a large factor is simply that the North is Communist and the South is Democratic.Quote:
Originally posted by alty29
After reading this article, I have a few questions for the "smarter" FK members, who know what they are talking about.
1)Why do North Korea and South Korea hate each other? We were talking about this in school a few days ago, but I was talking to a girl the whole time ( :mrpimp: ) guess I should have payed attention
2)It seems to me that only people in the UN are "allowed" to have nukes, is this true, and why?
3)Why dont we just send some seals, spies, or something in there to find out whats going on?
2) Not true. The IAEA mandates that countries that do not currently possess nuclear weapons are not "allowed" to develop them. North Korea appears to be acting in violation of this mandate.
3) It's not really necessary when they are declaring what they are doing. But I am sure we have eyes on it as well.
Ummmm, someone else wanna help out here?Quote:
1)Why do North Korea and South Korea hate each other? We were talking about this in school a few days ago, but I was talking to a girl the whole time ( :mrpimp: ) guess I should have payed attention
Doesn't the UN not include every country including Iraq and North Korea?Quote:
2)It seems to me that only people in the UN are "allowed" to have nukes, is this true, and why?
I really doubt there isn't spies already in there for a whole lot of different countries including america. I think North Korea will be a slighty tougher opponent than Iraq.Quote:
3)Why dont we just send some seals, spies, or something in there to find out whats going on?
Why so bloodthirsty? I like how you used our list.Quote:
Originally posted by gdstudios
North Korea is next on our list.
The UN is the UnitedNations... you have to meet certain criteria to be a member.. not causing pain and suffering to your own people... etc... :)Quote:
Originally posted by CVO Chris
I think North Korea will be a slighty tougher opponent than Iraq.
Didn't America "tool up" North Korea with all their old equiptment? Or was that the Russians? :)
we're neck deep in Blair's war mongering whether we like it or not.Quote:
Originally posted by CVO Chris
Why so bloodthirsty? I like how you used our list.
North Korea should really be top of "the list" I would have thought but the simple fact that they have a highly trained and well equiped army negates the possibility of a US/UK led attack on them.
As an aside, since there are plenty of these threads, did anyone see that program last week on BBC4 where a bloke took a holiday in the axis of evil countries? It was absolutely brilliant, he went to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Cuba and met locals etc
the US tooled up South Korea pinder.Quote:
Originally posted by Markp.com
The UN is the UnitedNations... you have to meet certain criteria to be a member.. not causing pain and suffering to your own people... etc... :)
Didn't America "tool up" North Korea with all their old equiptment? Or was that the Russians? :)
Did he have fun? Playing on the beaches, avoiding land mines? ;) I didn't see it... explain more monkey man :)Quote:
Originally posted by jamble7000
As an aside, since there are plenty of these threads, did anyone see that program last week on BBC4 where a bloke took a holiday in the axis of evil countries? It was absolutely brilliant, he went to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Cuba and met locals etc
So the Ruski's tooled up the north?Quote:
Originally posted by jamble7000
the US tooled up South Korea pinder.
I heart IraqQuote:
Originally posted by Markp.com
Did he have fun? Playing on the beaches, avoiding land mines? ;) I didn't see it... explain more monkey man :)
Not a massively detailled account but the programme was actually 3 hours long, I suspect they will end up showing it again on BBC4 in which case I'd recommend watching it.
Sounds like an interesting program!
And this poor lad... well it made me laugh :DQuote:
All four programmes in the Holiday in the Axis of Evil series will be screened in the UK on BBC Four on 31 January from 2250 GMT; and will be repeated on BBC Two on 10, 11, 17, 18 February at 2320 GMT.
Quote:
Can you please show these on BBC America? I can't take much more Changing Rooms, Home Invaders and Ground Force. We already have plenty of home decorating channels on cable & satellite. Please give us British documentaries.
H Sirett, US, formerly UK
definitely, the one where he visits North Korea is very interesting and his tour guide in Syria is hilarious :DQuote:
Originally posted by Markp.com
Sounds like an interesting program!
I agree for once. The North Korea situation is more directly threatening to the world than the Iraq one.Quote:
Originally posted by jamble7000
we're neck deep in Blair's war mongering whether we like it or not.
North Korea should really be top of "the list" I would have thought but the simple fact that they have a highly trained and well equiped army negates the possibility of a US/UK led attack on them.
As an aside, since there are plenty of these threads, did anyone see that program last week on BBC4 where a bloke took a holiday in the axis of evil countries? It was absolutely brilliant, he went to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Cuba and met locals etc
As indeed are their armed forces but Iraq offers the bonus of being of being a comparitively easy touch and also a great deal of oil.Quote:
Originally posted by gdstudios
I agree for once. The North Korea situation is more directly threatening to the world than the Iraq one.
Precisely. There would need to be a pretty serious crisis for the US to turn its military attention to that region.Quote:
Originally posted by jamble7000
As indeed are their armed forces but Iraq offers the bonus of being of being a comparitively easy touch and also a great deal of oil.
Quote:
Originally posted by jamble7000
we're neck deep in Blair's war mongering whether we like it or not.
North Korea should really be top of "the list" I would have thought but the simple fact that they have a highly trained and well equiped army negates the possibility of a US/UK led attack on them.
I agree, Iraq is a problem, but not as great as North Korea is. Why couldn't we go in together? Honostly, who do you think would win? I dont think it would be much like last time, if US and UK went in, alot of people would follow, the two most powerful countries in the world (I think im correct on that :confused: ) if you go in with us, you get kiss ass points, it would be smart...or incite SK to invade NK.
Yeah, part of the whole pre-coldwar, look at the fall of democracy to the big scary communists, era that the world went through.Quote:
Originally posted by Markp.com
So the Ruski's tooled up the north?
E.
One at a time. Like I said, North Korea is acting foolishly and will be next in the war on terror. (I know I'll get flak for related the two...)Quote:
Originally posted by alty29
I agree, Iraq is a problem, but not as great as North Korea is. Why couldn't we go in together? Honostly, who do you think would win? I dont think it would be much like last time, if US and UK went in, alot of people would follow, the two most powerful countries in the world (I think im correct on that :confused: ) if you go in with us, you get kiss ass points, it would be smart...or incite SK to invade NK.
It would be lunacy to attempt an invasion of North Korea. Their army is massive,Quote:
Originally posted by alty29
I agree, Iraq is a problem, but not as great as North Korea is. Why couldn't we go in together? Honostly, who do you think would win? I dont think it would be much like last time, if US and UK went in, alot of people would follow, the two most powerful countries in the world (I think im correct on that :confused: ) if you go in with us, you get kiss ass points, it would be smart...or incite SK to invade NK.
(Military manpower - fit for military service:
Definition Field Listing
males age 15-49: 3,619,535 (2002 est.))
and add to that the remoteness of the area in terms of supply ships reaching it. It would be another shamles like Vietnam (or indeed the first Korean war). Stick to bullying the easy countries I reckon.
"North Korea should really be top of "the list" I would have thought but the simple fact that they have a highly trained and well equiped army negates the possibility of a US/UK led attack on them."
Didn't stop us before. Of course, we would never invade N. Korea again if it came to blows.
The Chinese tooled up N Korea, not the Soviet Union.
Although I find North Korea's recent actions shocking and wreckless, at least their approach is a direct military confrontation instead of targeting innocents the way terrorists do. The possibility of Iraq passing weapons technology on to terrorist groups is real. Thus making them a more imperative threat than N Korea (since terrorists tend to target civilians).
Didn't the US also provide weapons in that particular spat? In fact, didn't the US (CIA) also train Bin Laden in order to fight the Russians in Afghanistan?Quote:
Originally posted by indivision
Didn't stop us before. Of course, we would never invade N. Korea again if it came to blows.
Although I find North Korea's recent actions shocking and wreckless, at least their approach is a direct military confrontation instead of targeting innocents the way terrorists do. The possibility of Iraq passing weapons technology on to terrorist groups is real. Thus making them a more imperative threat than N Korea (since terrorists tend to target civilians).
UK has a formidible military force but it's not one of the 2 strongest in the world by a long shot.Quote:
Originally posted by alty29
if US and UK went in, alot of people would follow, the two most powerful countries in the world (I think im correct on that :confused: )
Very good point sir.Quote:
Originally posted by indivision
Although I find North Korea's recent actions shocking and wreckless, at least their approach is a direct military confrontation instead of targeting innocents the way terrorists do. The possibility of Iraq passing weapons technology on to terrorist groups is real. Thus making them a more imperative threat than N Korea (since terrorists tend to target civilians).
who would be the strongest?Quote:
Originally posted by CVO Chris
UK has a formidible military force but it's not one of the 2 strongest in the world by a long shot.
*goggleizes it*
No, they did not provide weapons in that spat. They provided American soldiers to liberate South Korea after it was invaded by the Communist North.Quote:
Originally posted by jamble7000
Didn't the US also provide weapons in that particular spat? In fact, didn't the US (CIA) also train Bin Laden in order to fight the Russians in Afghanistan?
The US did not help Bin Laden directly but they did share support for Afghani forces against the Soviet Union.
from the article Jamble posted. :eek:
----------------------------------
"First up on my itinerary was North Korea. It got just 150 western tourists last year and there's no way the government-run tourist agency lets you wander around on your own.
The underground in the North Korean capital is a sight itself
The guide was with us from 7am to 11pm. Each day was museum, monument, farm, statue, dinner, bed; a publicity tour to show us how well communism works. But it was still obvious that most North Koreans lead a life of real banality and inconvenience.
Occasionally I got to speak someone in the street or in a museum, but many avoided us because they thought we were American. For Americans are always the bad guys in films there, and a lot of children were afraid of us."
----------------------------------
for any of you interested in world rankings, very interesting thread here
Quote:
1. USA (without a doubt, by far the best army in the world, possibly the best army the world has ever seen so far. At 6-2-1, WDL against worthy opponents, Uncle Sam's Mean Green Killing Machine is a force to be rekoned with. Nobody spends $$ on our military like we rightfully, IMO, do. The best army, the best navy (by far), and the best air force all goes to us . We )
2. Russia (hurting after it's fall 12 or so years ago, but still has a formidable arsenal, which gives it the advantage. Can slip to #3 real soon)
3. UK (a decent army, a great Air Force, probably the #2 navy in the world, and some killer special forces (especially those Nepalese guys), they are still a potent power on the world scene, and I'm glad they are on our side)
4. France (as much as I snicker about the French, they still have a decent military. Not that they have any hope of toppling the top 3 any time soon, but they are a solid #4. Solid all around, not to mention the rapists and murderers who make up the Foreign Legion)
5. China (only for size alone. They still are way behind in military technology, and have a pathetic non-blue water navy. These guys have potential to be fierce, especially if they keep spending $ on their military)
i havent done any research myself on this but i think the list in the link is closer to the truth.
i did hear that north korea has the fourth largest army. perhaps more powerful than france?
Quote:
Originally posted by indivision
i havent done any research myself on this but i think the list in the link is closer to the truth.
i did hear that north korea has the fourth largest army. perhaps more powerful than france?
Quote:
posted this in another thread, but it was closed...tell me your thoughts:
Since going by sheer number of troops is not an adequate indication of a country's military power, I created an index between number of soldiers and annual expenditure. I think this does provide us a good measure of a country's relative position because by dividing the total expenditures by the number of soldiers, we can determine how much money is invested in the average soldier, and by extension, how well trained and equipped an individual soldier is. Thus, we reconcile the issue of numbers vs. superior training/equipment (as long as we assume that the more money spent on every man, the higher the overall quality of the military.) So without further ado, here are the results (I used actual numbers from the 2002 World Fact Book: www.odci.gov/cia/publicat...s/gm.html)
Military Rankings, Top 10:
$$ (in billions)/# (of soldiers in millions)
1. Israel: 8.8/1.5 = $58.60
2. USA: 276.7/70.8 = $39.00
3. France: 46.5/14 = $33.20
4. England: 31.7/14.6 = $21.7 0
5. Australia: 9.3/5.0 = $18.60
6. Germany: 38.5/20.8 = $18.50
7. Italy: 20.2/14.1 = $14.30
8. Japan: 40.7/29.6 = $13.70
9. Spain: 8.6/8.4 = $10.20
10. Canada: 7.8/8.3 = $9.30
Other Notables:
12.8/14.2 = $9.00 (S. Korea)
5.1/6.1 = $8.30 (N. Korea)
9.7/18.8 = $5.10 (Iran)
4.3/9.5 = $4.50(Argentina)
8.1/19.2 = $4.20 (Turkey)
13.4/48.8 = $2.70 (Brazil)
1.3/6.1 = $2.10 (Iraq)
1.8/11.5 = $1.50 (South Africa)
4/27.2 = $1.40 (Mexico)
2.5/36.9 = $0.60 (Pakistan)
20/370 = $0.50 (China)
12/285.6 = $0.40 (India)
Now just eyeballing these rankings, I concede that they don't fall perfectly into place from what we would imagine. For example, I'd be a lot more afraid of China than I would be of South Africa, eventhough South Africa spends more money per soldier. Nevertheless, while we can quibble about the exact order of the top 10 (I realize there are many intangible factors), I think we can at the very least agree that the countries listed in this top 10 merit top tier military rankings
I don't see the US making another Vietnam-type mistake. If they go, they'll go well-armed and well-manned, something that Vietnam was severely lacking.Quote:
Originally posted by jamble7000
It would be lunacy to attempt an invasion of North Korea. Their army is massive,
(Military manpower - fit for military service:
Definition Field Listing
males age 15-49: 3,619,535 (2002 est.))
and add to that the remoteness of the area in terms of supply ships reaching it. It would be another shamles like Vietnam (or indeed the first Korean war). Stick to bullying the easy countries I reckon.
As for the military of N. Korea - there might be a lot of 'em, but armies march on their stomachs and they ain't got no food. Or oil, which is why they're turning on the atomic power stations in the first place.
It does seem to me that N. Korea wants a schoolyard scrap, but no one has the time to indulge, they are such little consequence. That is, of course, until they detonate the first warhead.
If they detonate a warhear, I honostly think they will have extreme hell to pay.Quote:
Originally posted by hurricaneone
I don't see the US making another Vietnam-type mistake. If they go, they'll go well-armed and well-manned, something that Vietnam was severely lacking.
As for the military of N. Korea - there might be a lot of 'em, but armies march on their stomachs and they ain't got no food. Or oil, which is why they're turning on the atomic power stations in the first place.
It does seem to me that N. Korea wants a schoolyard scrap, but no one has the time to indulge, they are such little consequence. That is, of course, until they detonate the first warhead.
Colin Powell For President
I used to work for an organization in the DC area that dealt with plenty of US Intelligence agencies. We awarded grants to fascilitate research and development projects with the Former Soviet Union. I can tell you that, gone are the days of Vietnam-styler mistakes. Don't doubt for a second that the United States has an arsenal of weaponery that so far eclipses anyone elses, that they don't have to worry about being threaten by another country militarily for the forseeable future. None of what I worked on was classified (well some of it was). If only you knew the R & D projects that DARPA works on on a daily basis. Bottom line: If the USA decides something needs to be done about North Korea, they'll take care of North Korea. And they could do so without many casualties. EMP and RF weapons-the wave of the future my friends...
Adversely, I don't see anyone threatening sanctions against the US if they unilaterally decide that the nuclear deterrent should become the nuclear action.Quote:
Originally posted by alty29
If they detonate a warhear, I honostly think they will have extreme hell to pay.