|
SWEEET, USA vs. NORTH KOREA (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kirbtastic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ LiQuiD GoosE
just assumed u were a bit excited at the prospects of a war by the tone of your post..that's all...also, why would u call me kid? |
your avatar is what its gonna look like when u look at your bedroom window in the north koreans dont cut it out.
im jk. i had to say it, it was just to easy |
|
|
| DJ LiQuiD GoosE |
| quote: | Originally posted by kirbtastic
your avatar is what its gonna look like when u look at your bedroom window in the north koreans dont cut it out.
im jk. i had to say it, it was just to easy |
LOL...man...u got me all scared now |
|
|
| KoreanDJ |
so u r not a kid? because im pretty old.......
Stevek :wtf: |
|
|
| DJ LiQuiD GoosE |
| quote: | Originally posted by KoreanDJ
so u r not a kid? because im pretty old.......
Stevek :wtf: |
naw..i'm old..do i hate to say?? i'm in my 30's , "kid" |
|
|
| fr0st |
| quote: | Originally posted by kirbtastic
Most of the US oil imports come from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. These three countries account for almost 45% of total US imports. There are about 10 other countries supplying between 1% and 5% which total an additional 28% of imports. Beyond that, there are 34 other countries that supply the final 13%. With nearly 50 countries vying to supply the US with oil, it appears that these countries each need the US more than the US needs them. The US is the dominant source of income for most oil producing countries. For most of these countries, oil is their dominant export. If the US did not purchase their fuel, someone else would, but chances are, they would not pay as much.
Oil is frequently cited as one of the primary factors in the US's decisions for action in the middle east. With the gulf supplying less than 20% of the current US imports, and at least 40 other countries capable of supplying oil that are not located in the Persian Gulf region, it doesn't seem to be much in the interests of the US to act in Gulf region solely because it is a source of petroleum. As an energy source, petroleum coming from the Persian Gulf supplies the US with less than 2% of total required BTU's. Cheap oil is also cited as a major motivator when it comes to US decisions; however, the US appears to increase consumption from OPEC countries routinely whenever they raise their prices. |
Well put kirby as always, but you forgot to mention the US has barely tapped into its own OIL and could suffice on that alone. US is one of the few completely self sustaining countries. |
|
|
| displaced |
two words: war economics
it pulled the world out of the global depression before, its going to do it again... |
|
|
| kirbtastic |
| quote: | Originally posted by displaced
two words: war economics
it pulled the world out of the global depression before, its going to do it again... |
the only reason why it pulled the world out of a global depression (im guessing you r talking about WW1) is because the whole world is involved. The theory behind war economics is that it creates jobs for production of war time materials. Unless these wars are long and dragged out, war time economics will have no effect on the economy. If you remember Desert Storm (i hate it when we give names like this to wars, it makes it sound like a movie) the USA slipped into a great recession afterwards. |
|
|
| irish_4_you |
| quote: | Originally posted by fr0st
Well put kirby as always, but you forgot to mention the US has barely tapped into its own OIL and could suffice on that alone. US is one of the few completely self sustaining countries. |
You wont see the US doing that any time soon if at all. Its called economies of scale. Its cheaper for the US to have other countriest to provide us with a resource that they specialize in than for the US to do it themselves. Its cheaper to import oil than do it ourselves. Just like companies outsource. They can spend more resources somewhere else while simply buying what they need.
And the WMD isnt a new thing at all. It was an issue even 12 years ago during the Gulf War. But as time progresses, so doesnt the ability of Irag to further their advances. Bush's biggest issue is being paranoid. Which he has the right to be. The biggest terrorist event ever happened on his soil in his presidency. I guess it comes down to the old shoot first and ask questions later theory. When it comes to protecting your country, he rather shoot first when there is a threat than wait and act after. Its called being proactive even if he is excessive.
In his position, I would be proactive as well. Just not an idiot about it.
Irish |
|
|
| gOOD-tRiP |
| quote: | Originally posted by KoreanDJ
Man, if BUSH have fought in a war or something, I would give him maaaaad crops, |
i think the correct slang is PROPS. Just warning you if your about to say it in public. |
|
|
| xxTRANCEBOYxx |
To quote the title of a North Vietnamese pop bands song....
"Peace is at the end of our bayonets" |
|
|
| Robert |
Some interesting facts:
U.S. & Allies:
Active Troops: 4,988,000
Reserve Troops: 10,299,000
Heavy Tanks: 28,398
Armored Infantry Vehicles: 68,581
Air planes: 20,536
Helicopters: 13,500
Major Warships: 726
Amphibious, Mine, & Support Ships: 804
Military Budget (Billions ): $501
note that a large number of the US troops consists of the National Guard.
US & Allies consist of: USA, UK, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, Spain, Norway, Turkey, Portugal, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Belgium, Japan and South Korea.
North Korea
Active Troops: 1,128,000
Reserve Troops: 550,000
Heavy Tanks: 3,400
Armored Infantry Vehicles: 2,200
Air planes: 1,139
Helicopters: 283
Major Warships: 28
Amphibious, Mine, & Support Ships: 32
Military Budget (Billions ): $5
This is the most militarized society on earth. Every male citizen serves a term in the armed forces (unless they manage to go to university AND into government).
Basic Training: Soviet
China would probably get involved on North Korea's behalf:
China
Active Troops: 2,930,000
Reserve Troops: 1,200,000
Heavy Tanks: 8,250
Armored Infantry Vehicles: 4,500
Air planes: 6,100
Helicopters: 513
Major Warships: 117
Amphibious, Mine, & Support Ships: 340
Military Budget (Billions ): $32
China has the world's largest military, although their equipment is mostly obsoleteby 1960's standards.
Basic Training: Third World
Other states that may get involved:
Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan Syria
Active Troops: 1,593,000
Reserve Troops: 1,825,000
Heavy Tanks: 12,805
Armored Infantry Vehicles: 11,260
Air planes: 2,600
Helicopters: 1,696
Major Warships: 23
Amphibious, Mine, & Support Ships: 101
Military Budget (Billions ): $10
Note that most of these armies are poorly trained an equiped and have low budgets.
Altho I think Russia will not get involved too much:
Russia
Active Troops: 1,520,000
Reserve Troops: 2,400,000
Heavy Tanks: 17,650
Armored Infantry Vehicles: 28,330
Air planes: 5,674
Helicopters: 2,903
Major Warships: 299
Amphibious, Mine, & Support Ships: 868
Military Budget (Billions ): $48
Basic Training: Soviet
So in a showdown US & Allies vs North Korea would look like 4,988,000 troops vs 1,128,000. Offcourse the Allies could never send this amount of troops.
With a kill ratio of perhaps 300:1 (as someone else suggested in favour of the allies, it would still mean almost 6000 Allied dead (asuming North Korea uses all their reserves and fight till the end).
Offcourse all these numbers do not represent a realistic way of a possible war, it's still an interesting point. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
First of all, in this possible scenario US and allies would equal to US. China most likely wouldn't get involved directly either, except that it might give supplies and weapons to the NK.
But, the US definitely couldn't pull all of its armed forces there, I doubt it could send over a million people there. So the numbers would be about equal there. The US does have much more advanced technology, but the North Koreans would be fighting on their own territory, so it would be a pretty balanced fight. But the most important thing is that here both involved sides have nukes, and if a war breaks out, it's pretty sure they're gonna use it, so the number of conventional forces is not so important.
Also, I think you underestimate China's military, it is definitely not in the 60s anymore, and considering it's vicinity to the battlefield, if China really gets involved, that would mean a NK victory. Of course, that is assuming China and US won't nuke each other, in which case there will be no winner. |
|
|
|
|
