POLL: North Korea vs USA (battleground = Korea)

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aswedc

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aswedc
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. Where else can you find gulag like death camps today?

Look, I wasn't for the Iraq war on humanitarian reasons. Saddam really hadn't done anything overly offensive in the past decade. But if there ever was a case for helping a people just because of our humanity, it is in North Korea. Where else are thousands of people starving to death because the government wants to spend more money on military expenses than food for every year you wait?

While NK spends the highest percentage of its GDP on military expenses, do you know who spends the 2nd highest? I think you do. And why? Because altruists like yourself keep thinking we need to save the whole damned world. Get over yourself.

Why does it matter who spends the second highest? What is your philosophy anyway, cut spending so you can have more money?

BTW, it would be a mistake to think I favor attacking North Korea. You asked what would be wrong with waiting several years, and I provided several possible answers. Sorry, I thought this was a discussion board.

Calm down now. I was simply rebutting your argument that NK was so evil because they spent so much of their GDP on military, while you praised the US for doing the same thing. It seemed to me that you were trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Vic
Exactly. The Soviet Union collapsed over a decade ago and we still haven't attacked Cuba. Why? Because we know that eventually Castro will die and go to Hell and his government along with it. Then we will win Cuba peaceably, without a drop of blood spent. The same thing will happen in NK as well.

Castro must be some sort of robot. He'll never die.

 

[sygyzy]

I love Americans that still believe and argue that the US did *not* lose the Vietnam war. Lame.

As for the current topic, I voted US.

 

[91TTZ]

I think most of us understand that the US has the most powerful military in the world, but I don't think many people understand just how much more powerful it is compared to other countries. It isn't even close. Other countries may have a lot of troops, but people are soft targets. Machines kill people. And the US has by far the most advanced war machines, and the most of them.

Take a look at the spending when you put it in perspective with a chart:

Pie Chart

Bar graph

Not only are we #1 in spending, we spend more than #2 through #20 combined.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I love Americans that still believe and argue that the US did *not* lose the Vietnam war. Lame.

As for the current topic, I voted US.

It is arguable if the US 'lost' the war in Vietnam, but US forces won every single military engagement.

I think it would be more correct to say that the South Vietnamese lost the war in Vietnam, not the US.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Vic
Exactly. The Soviet Union collapsed over a decade ago and we still haven't attacked Cuba. Why? Because we know that eventually Castro will die and go to Hell and his government along with it. Then we will win Cuba peaceably, without a drop of blood spent. The same thing will happen in NK as well.

Castro must be some sort of robot. He'll never die.

He will eventually die. He's only 78 years old now, but it seems that his health has been weakening the past few years. It just seems like he's been in power forever because he was only 32 when he rose to power.
I think that the biggest issue that will arise when he does die is that he has 5 sons. But likely they will fight amongst themselves for power and the US will be able to use that as a opportunity to topple the whole government and re-introduce democracy. And then Cuba will become the Las Vegas of the east coast as it was supposed to be all along.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Saulbadguy
China would get in on the penis waving match. Then we'd most certainly lose.

Really, I wouldn't be to worried about Chinese waving their penis around, for you know obvious reasons 🙂

*ducks*

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aswedc

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aswedc
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. Where else can you find gulag like death camps today?

Look, I wasn't for the Iraq war on humanitarian reasons. Saddam really hadn't done anything overly offensive in the past decade. But if there ever was a case for helping a people just because of our humanity, it is in North Korea. Where else are thousands of people starving to death because the government wants to spend more money on military expenses than food for every year you wait?

While NK spends the highest percentage of its GDP on military expenses, do you know who spends the 2nd highest? I think you do. And why? Because altruists like yourself keep thinking we need to save the whole damned world. Get over yourself.

Why does it matter who spends the second highest? What is your philosophy anyway, cut spending so you can have more money?

BTW, it would be a mistake to think I favor attacking North Korea. You asked what would be wrong with waiting several years, and I provided several possible answers. Sorry, I thought this was a discussion board.

Calm down now. I was simply rebutting your argument that NK was so evil because they spent so much of their GDP on military, while you praised the US for doing the same thing. It seemed to me that you were trying to have your cake and eat it too.

But US has the financial means so that a high defense budget doesn't not cause mass starvation in the populous.

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aswedc

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aswedc
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. Where else can you find gulag like death camps today?

Look, I wasn't for the Iraq war on humanitarian reasons. Saddam really hadn't done anything overly offensive in the past decade. But if there ever was a case for helping a people just because of our humanity, it is in North Korea. Where else are thousands of people starving to death because the government wants to spend more money on military expenses than food for every year you wait?

While NK spends the highest percentage of its GDP on military expenses, do you know who spends the 2nd highest? I think you do. And why? Because altruists like yourself keep thinking we need to save the whole damned world. Get over yourself.

Why does it matter who spends the second highest? What is your philosophy anyway, cut spending so you can have more money?

BTW, it would be a mistake to think I favor attacking North Korea. You asked what would be wrong with waiting several years, and I provided several possible answers. Sorry, I thought this was a discussion board.

Calm down now. I was simply rebutting your argument that NK was so evil because they spent so much of their GDP on military, while you praised the US for doing the same thing. It seemed to me that you were trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I didn't say I thought military spending was a good thing - I said it provides a (temporary) boost to the economy - which is a fact. Why does everything have to be an argument? Bah, what happened to being able to present all sides of an issue even if you don't believe in it.

Anyway, you made it personal when you told me to get over myself 😉

 

[xaeniac]

Who would win out of China and US>?

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: xaeniac
Who would win out of China and US>?

Way too open ended. Depends on the definition of "winning" as well as the conditions of engagement.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aswedc
When the war industry wins, the economy wins. History has proven this more than once.

At the cost of tremendous government debt and resulting economic inflation. War does not make for a viable long-term economy. Adam Smith proved that more than 200 years ago.

AFAIK, history only proved this once...WWII. And that was only because we were in a depression with only one way to go....up.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: xaeniac
Who would win out of China and US>?

China's military is nearly entirely optimised for defending its own borders. They have tons of troops, trucks, and tanks, and short range fighters. They don't have many power projection tools like the US does, such as aircraft carriers, long range bombers, cargo planes, etc. They seem content sticking to their own borders.

They've had nuclear bombs for the last 50 years, but since then have only built a small handful of them. They are mainly a defensive country, not an offensive country.

 

[Sepen]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Sepen
It would be a hell hole, they have a huge Army and are strategically setup. They would anniliate SKorea lauching tons of missiles during the onset of it. They would hit Japan too. In the end we would probably win, but the losses would he huge for us. The war would drag on as well. The citizens and Armies have been propaganda to death, they hate us. Anyone who thinks it will be a cakewalk is underestimating the opponent. They are a modern Army, not outdated, and spend like 40% of there income on the military. Now, if this was Iran, I feel a quick, swift and decisive victory.

I think the US could take anyone. And I also think down the road we will eventually have to go to war with NK.

If you bothered to read the OP's premise he mentioned a conventional war, no nuclear missles. In that case while you claim they would hit Japan and South Korea, the US nukes would have turned North Korea into a crater lower than sea level.

Also North Korea very well could spend 40% of their income on the military, but when their GDP is amongst the lowest in the world that 40% doesn't amount to any significant amount. According to the CIA Factbook their estimated GDP is $29.5 billion; 40% of that is nothing.
I think the US DoD spends that in a week.

You mention that North Korea is strategically setup. Do you think that the South Koreans and US troops have just been sitting on their butts for the past fifty years? I am sure the Pentagon has all sorts of just-in-case war plans drawn up for an invasion of North Korea that could be implemented uber quick-like.

I meant conventional missiles. Um, what do we have over there. 40k soldiers? They would not sits on there butts playing defense. I will have to check my facts but I think with what we have there and the South, they would still outnumber us 2-1.

 

[Buickbeast]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Let's face the facts- the US is not going to go to war with North Korea. We're just going to slowly strangle them to death. We've had sanctions against them for so long that the country is in permanent poverty. They don't have enough electricity to light all of their houses, they don't have enough oil to heat their homes, and they don't have enough food to feed everybody.

We are waiting for the people to revolt and the government to collapse. Same thing happened to the Soviet Union. There was no epic battle that took place- we just constricted the money and resources and let them collapse from within.

I think the fact that we neither want to go to war with them nor help them tells you that we're playing the waiting game with them. We like how things are going right now and we're going to keep it that way until they collapse from within.

:thumbsup:

I have no doubt that we would or would have already invaded N. Korea if they didn't have Nukes. Just like we would of left Saddam alone if he had nukes. In war people don't play fair and they use the weapons they have.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: xaeniac
Who would win out of China and US>?

China's military is nearly entirely optimised for defending its own borders. They have tons of troops, trucks, and tanks, and short range fighters. They don't have many power projection tools like the US does, such as aircraft carriers, long range bombers, cargo planes, etc. They seem content sticking to their own borders.

They've had nuclear bombs for the last 50 years, but since then have only built a small handful of them. They are mainly a defensive country, not an offensive country.

So explain to me how 1/3rd of their landmass is stolen? Xinjiang and Tibet??? They also attacked India, although in a very small-dicked manner as usual. Attacking during a peace conference.

I guess I should stick to the P/N for knowledgable discussion.

 

[Buickbeast]

Originally posted by: Babbles

It is arguable if the US 'lost' the war in Vietnam, but US forces won every single military engagement.

I think it would be more correct to say that the South Vietnamese lost the war in Vietnam, not the US.

Yes, as the saying goes, "Won the battle, lost the war". We left earily, therefore we lost.

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aswedc
When the war industry wins, the economy wins. History has proven this more than once.

At the cost of tremendous government debt and resulting economic inflation. War does not make for a viable long-term economy. Adam Smith proved that more than 200 years ago.

AFAIK, history only proved this once...WWII. And that was only because we were in a depression with only one way to go....up.

Quick Google...

One major economic result of the war was that it helped change the U.S. from a country with an essentially agrarian society to one dependent on mechanization and a national market system. Only the North possessed an industrial base, small as it was, before the shooting started. During the fiscal year ending 1 June 1860, the country possessed some 128,300 industrial establishments. Of these, 110,274 were located in states that remained in the Union. The most heavily industrialized states, New York and Pennsylvania, each had more industry than all the seceding states combined. In 1860, too, America had a total of $1,050,000,000 invested in real and personal property devoted to business, with $949,335,000 concentrated in the North; Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts each had a larger investment than the South as a whole. Finally, the North contributed 92.5% of the $1.9 billion that comprised the total value of annual product in the country in 1860.

One body of evidence indicates that the war widened this sectional disparity by destroying the South's minute industrial base and expanding that of the North to prodigious dimensions. Statistics on specific industries provide what appears to be convincing proof. While the loss of the Southern crop produced a steep war-long decline in production in the North's largest industry, cotton textiles, its woolen industry enjoyed a 100% production rise during the conflict. The second largest consumer industry in the Union, shoes and leather, also enjoyed tremendous growth, thanks to army contracts that more than offset the loss of the Southern market. Other war related industries, especially firearms, gunpowder, and wagon manufacturing, grew rapidly on the strength of military contracts. Meanwhile, iron production in the North experienced a slump early in the war but boomed 1863-64, in the latter year reaching a production level 29% higher than that of the entire country in the busiest prewar year, 1856. The coal industry experienced similar growth, in 1861-65 enjoying an expansion rate 21% higher than that for the nation as a whole during the 4 years immediately preceding civil strife.

The war years stimulated production of new inventions and accelerated the growth of established technology. Due to a deluge of government contracts, sewing machines became an integral part of the clothing industry, and the 50-year-old system of machine-made interchangeable parts became firmly entrenched in the production system. Agriculture-related industrial goods also witnessed production spurts attributable to the war: Gail Bordens condensed-milk process, patented in 1856, became essential to the diets of many Union soldiers, while implements including the thresher and the rotary plow experienced sales booms as machinery took over work abandoned by farm hands gone to war. In other ways, such as by easing unemployment and by promoting the enactment of protective tariffs, the war encouraged wide-scale industrial expansion. No wonder that by 1864 the Unions manufacturing index had risen to a level 13% greater than that of the country as a whole in 1860.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Buickbeast

I have no doubt that we would or would have already invaded N. Korea if they didn't have Nukes. Just like we would of left Saddam alone if he had nukes. In war people don't play fair and they use the weapons they have.

We gave up trying to convert them to democracy in the 1950's after the Korean War. They only recently got nukes, but it was still more hassle than it's worth.

Iraq has a huge amount of natural resources that we want, so invading them will pay off in the end. North Korea has nothing at all. It would be a risk for no reward. We're just going to let them rot.

 

[Drakkon]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Saulbadguy
China would get in on the penis waving match. Then we'd most certainly lose.

Really, I wouldn't be to worried about Chinese waving their penis around, for you know obvious reasons 🙂

*ducks*

Chinese: You are American.
American: Yes.
Chinese: Ohhh, you must have very big penis!
American: Excuse me, I was just asking you what your up to.
Chinese: Nothing, we are very simple people with very small penis. Mr. Hosik's penis is especially small!
Mr. Hosik: So small.
Chinese: We cannot achieve so much with such small penis, but you American wow, penis so big, so big penis!
American: Well aah I guess it is pretty good size.

yep and there it goes...we loose 😛

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

So explain to me how 1/3rd of their landmass is stolen? Xinjiang and Tibet??? They also attacked India, although in a very small-dicked manner as usual. Attacking during a peace conference.

It isn't stolen in their minds. They say it was theirs to begin with, and they just took it back. And they were not serious about attacking India, as I'm sure you've figured out. With 2 countries with 1 billion people each, they both could fight harder than that if they wanted to.

And the P&N section mostly attracts political wacko's like leftists and fundies. Not many people in the middle would feel like arguing about politics that much.

 

[Babbles]

I just realized everytime on ATOT when people put forth these ideas of US vs. <Insert Random Country Here> it is always implied that the US will be the invading force. Never the other way around. I think why people assume this is because of a bias, unconscious or not, that the US is without a doubt the most powerful military simply because we can project our military force.

Why can't this question be taken as North Korea invading the US? I think nobody has thought of it because it should be pretty obvious to everybody, including my cat that there is no way possible North Korea could attack the US. Somebody mentions China vs. US; how about China as the agressor, why does it have to be the US? The Chinese military is so pathetic people just automatically give them the 'benefit' of being on defense and ponder what the US would have to do to invade.

My point is that simply asking the question creates a bias because no other country can project anywhere near the military might that the US can. Essentially by default it means the US is the strongest military force hands down.
So those of you think that the US would get "owned" in some attack, stop thinking of the US as aggressors but rather as defenders. Then please enlighten us how North Korea, China or whomever could possibly "win" a conflict.

 

[Drakkon]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I just realized everytime on ATOT when people put forth these ideas of US vs. <Instert Random Country Here> it is always implied that the US will be the invading force. Never the other way around. I think why people assume this is because of a bias, unconscious or not, that the US is without a doubt the most powerful military simply because we can project our military force.

Why can't this question be taken as North Korea invading the US? I think nobody has thought of it because it should be pretty obvious to everybody, including my cat that there is no way possible North Korea could attack the US. Somebody mentions China vs. US; how about China as the agressor, why does it have to be the US? The Chinese military is so pathetic people just automatically give them the 'benefit' of being on defense and ponder what the US would have to do to invade.

My point is that simply asking the question creates a bias because no other country can project anywhere near the military might that the US can. Essentially by default it means the US is the strongest military force hands down.
So those of you think that the US would get "owned" in some attack, stop thinking of the US as aggressors but rather as defenders. Then please enlighten us how North Korea, China or whomever could possibly "win" a conflict.

no country in the history of america has come on to our turrf and taken away our land...they get one attack off then they get their assess handed to them. Thats why we can assume the US is the invading force. Any country that decided to try and take over any us terriroty is going to get the fight of their lives and most likely annihilated and their country "americanized" because of it. I mean take Japan...they tried to take one tiny island of ours...we not only nuke their land but take over half of europe for good measure...and now they depend on us so much to consume their goods they are now our ally

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I just realized everytime on ATOT when people put forth these ideas of US vs. <Insert Random Country Here> it is always implied that the US will be the invading force. Never the other way around. I think why people assume this is because of a bias, unconscious or not, that the US is without a doubt the most powerful military simply because we can project our military force.

That's because they don't have the means to get their troops over here.

That would play out just as well as the last 2 times Cuba tried to attack us:

Attempt #1

Attempt #2

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Drakkon

no country in the history of america has come on to our turrf and taken away our land...they get one attack off then they get their assess handed to them. Thats why we can assume the US is the invading force. Any country that decided to try and take over any us terriroty is going to get the fight of their lives and most likely annihilated and their country "americanized" because of it. I mean take Japan...they tried to take one tiny island of ours...we not only nuke their land but take over half of europe for good measure...and now they depend on us so much to consume their goods they are now our ally

Ahem...The Brits owned us pretty badly when they captured Washington and burned down the Executive Mansion and other government buildings.