Your thoughts on possible futur Japan, SK alliance, 4 economy, military, R&D, sea tunnel,etc Options

[CJK]

why would either china or japan trust each other anyway?

korea has got to have the most superior army out of the three as well.

[Mangafan2]

lol we hairy monkeys like Americans more than terrorists.

[MING-LOYALIST]

haha you fool korea has historically proven to be much harder to conquer than china, so i hope you dont mean historically. Even now korea is the most well armed, most built up piece of land that no one could possibly conquer. I mean, china does have a larger military, but korea has lesser amount of land to defend.

Your statement needs proof. less amount of land means less strategic depth, easier to be rapidly overrun or overwhelmed with no where to retreat.
Anyway none of this is going to happen.

[SantaKlaws]

haha you fool korea has historically proven to be much harder to conquer than china, so i hope you dont mean historically. Even now korea is the most well armed, most built up piece of land that no one could possibly conquer. I mean, china does have a larger military, but korea has lesser amount of land to defend.

Your statement needs proof. less amount of land means less strategic depth, easier to be rapidly overrun or overwhelmed with no where to retreat.
Anyway none of this is going to happen.

Or less amount of land means more strategic depth, it is easier to be rapidly overrun or overwhelmed with no where to retreat.

[MING-LOYALIST]

haha you fool korea has historically proven to be much harder to conquer than china, so i hope you dont mean historically. Even now korea is the most well armed, most built up piece of land that no one could possibly conquer. I mean, china does have a larger military, but korea has lesser amount of land to defend.

Your statement needs proof. less amount of land means less strategic depth, easier to be rapidly overrun or overwhelmed with no where to retreat.
Anyway none of this is going to happen.

Or less amount of land means more strategic depth, it is easier to be rapidly overrun or overwhelmed with no where to retreat.

What???
Are you just repeating after me?

[SantaKlaws]

haha you fool korea has historically proven to be much harder to conquer than china, so i hope you dont mean historically. Even now korea is the most well armed, most built up piece of land that no one could possibly conquer. I mean, china does have a larger military, but korea has lesser amount of land to defend.

Your statement needs proof. less amount of land means less strategic depth, easier to be rapidly overrun or overwhelmed with no where to retreat.
Anyway none of this is going to happen.

Or less amount of land means more strategic depth, it is easier to be rapidly overrun or overwhelmed with no where to retreat.

What???
Are you just repeating after me?

No, not really. I made an important contrary statement, that less amount of land requires more strategic depth.

Anyways, your statement is hardly a rebuttal to Lateman's argument. He said "historically", not "strategically." History has already happened in the past, and strategy is to systematically pursue a better outcome of the future. In other words, your argument is irrelevant.

This post has been edited by SantaKlaws: Sep 9 2005, 04:45 AM

[freefallz]

Conquer is an irrelevant term in this case. China is simply too vast. The pure definition of 'conquering' is out of the question.

[MING-LOYALIST]

No, not really. I made an important contrary statement, that less amount of land requires more strategic depth.

Anyways, your statement is hardly a rebuttal to Lateman's argument. He said "historically", not "strategically." History has already happened in the past, and strategy is to systematically pursue a better outcome of the future. In other words, your argument is irrelevant.

You don't know what strategic depth is.
Even in ancient times people used strategy. Maybe you have heard of "scortched earth.". Well China has a lot more earth to scortch then korea.
Also China's weapons can reach anywhere in korea while korea's weapons can barely cover 5% of China.ie china can destroy korea's infrastructure while korea cannot do the same.

This post has been edited by MING-LOYALIST: Sep 9 2005, 05:14 AM

[Mangafan2]

Not to give any idea's but they can do it terrorist style and blow themselves up in the cities >_> no need for nukes when u can do itthat way

[SantaKlaws]

No, not really. I made an important contrary statement, that less amount of land requires more strategic depth.

Anyways, your statement is hardly a rebuttal to Lateman's argument. He said "historically", not "strategically." History has already happened in the past, and strategy is to systematically pursue a better outcome of the future. In other words, your argument is irrelevant.

You don't know what strategic depth is.
Even in ancient times people used strategy. Maybe you have heard of "scortched earth.". Well China has a lot more earth to scortch then korea.

China has a lot more earth to scorch than Korea, but China has a lot more men to do it with.

I know what the concept strategy means. It is to plan for a long term outcome. Strategy is much more important to an outnumbered army. Wars between Koguryo and Sui is a great example. Sui definintely had the absolute advantage - greater numbers. However, Koguryo used much better strategies. Scorched earth and feigned surrender. When such strategy is absent, Korea is easily overrun, which is the case for Seven Year War, when the idiotic Korean King left Korea completely defenseless. Still, Yi Sunshin's strategy of using local terrain to limit the enemy's mobility gave Korea naval superiority.

And again, strategy is irrelevant to Lateman's argument. History already happened. End of story.

Also China's weapons can reach anywhere in korea while korea's weapons can barely cover 5% of China.ie china can destroy korea's infrastructure while korea cannot do the same.

Why don't you explain to us carefully of the scenario where China launches nuclear missiles on South Korea. And think through it, especially about its consequences.

This post has been edited by SantaKlaws: Sep 9 2005, 07:25 AM

[MING-LOYALIST]

Why don't you expalin to us carefully of a scenario where China launches nuclear missiles on South Korea. And think through it, especially about its consequences.

China have a "no first use" policy on nukes.
Conventional missiles can destroy power plants, bridges, factorys even telephone poles.

And again, strategy is irrelevant to Lateman's argument. History already happened. End of story.

Lateman said China was easier to conqure then korea, I just want proof.

[SantaKlaws]

China have a "no first use" policy on nukes.
Conventional missiles can destroy power plants, bridges, factorys even telephone poles.

If you're interested in South Korea's military capabilities, go make a new thread on it. I don't want to go off topic here. Anyways, under the current circumstances, neither countries can wage war. South Korea can't attack another country until North Korea has been dealt with.

China certainly has the advantage in strategic weapons, but South Korea has a strategic alliance with the United States, which is maintained on the condition that South Korea does not develop nukes.

Lateman said China was easier to conqure then korea, I just want proof.

haha you fool korea has historically proven to be much harder to conquer than china, so i hope you dont mean historically

This post has been edited by SantaKlaws: Sep 9 2005, 07:48 AM

[MING-LOYALIST]

If you're interested in South Korea's military capabilities, go make a new thread on it. I don't want to go off topic here. Anyways, under the current circumstances, neither countries can wage war. South Korea can't attack another country until North Korea has been dealt with.

Agreed.

Lateman said China was easier to conqure then korea, I just want proof.

haha you fool korea has historically proven to be much harder to conquer than china, so i hope you dont mean historically

He said historically proven.
Yet why Japan was able to subjugate korea so easily but not China?

[SantaKlaws]

He said historically proven.
Yet why Japan was able to subjugate korea so easily but not China?

Political bickering and an idiotic king. UrGok Yiyi, one of the greatest scholar official Korea had, warned of an imminent Japanese invasion, and urged the need for a new army of 100,000 men. However, his proposal was scoffed at and was ignored. Later on, upon Japanese insistance, the king would send over two envoys. When the two returned, the king would how is Japan. One envoy said they are strong and very capable of a large scale invasion. This other envoy who was a political rival said the very opposite out of spite. This idiotic king believes the latter, and leaves Korea completely defenceless, and rejects Japan's proposal to cooperate on their campaign against China.

However, ultimately, Japan failed to subjugate Korea, as Korea won the war.

If you're talking about how Korea was colonized, it's a lot more complicated. Korea at the time was divided by pro-China, pro-Russia and pro-Japan political sects. Eventually, the pro-Japan won and made Korea a Japanese protectorate. Then gradually, Japan took more and more political control until Korea was annexed. Japan mainly used politics(backed by military power) and superior culture as means to invade and take over Korea.

This post has been edited by SantaKlaws: Sep 9 2005, 08:12 AM

[Ogumo]

My thoughts? The koreans can't be trusted with such an alliance. This includes the ROK.Economically sure thats quite alright. Politically or anything else I can't see happening. The only way I would support such a thing is if the koreans had more to lose than us. Even then japan still should be hesitant to show any weakness toward them. Infact I take it back. Japanese should never give them full trust in any given situation. Of course I'll take ROK over the snakes from the USA anyday.

However, ultimately, Japan failed to subjugate Korea, as Korea won the war.

Wrong. America won the war for korea. Actually thats still wrong. America won the war for it's own self interests. Korea was given independence after.

This post has been edited by Ogumo: Sep 9 2005, 08:58 PM

[kyosak]

My thoughts? The koreans can't be trusted with such an alliance. This includes the ROK.Economically sure thats quite alright. Politically or anything else I can't see happening. The only way I would support such a thing is if the koreans had more to lose than us. Even then japan still should be hesitant to show any weakness toward them. Infact I take it back. Japanese should never give them full trust in any given situation. Of course I'll take ROK over the snakes from the USA anyday.

However, ultimately, Japan failed to subjugate Korea, as Korea won the war.

Wrong. America won the war for korea. Actually thats still wrong. America won the war for it's own self interests. Korea was given independence after.

lol... All that really matters is Japan lost.

[Jizzah]

All that really matters is that Ogumo is an "otaku" who couldn't conquer anything if he tried.

[kaizen]

Wrong. America won the war for korea. Actually thats still wrong. America won the war for it's own self interests. Korea was given independence after.

He was talking about the Japanese invasion of Korea during 1597, genius. Know something before you make an @$$ out of yourself.

This post has been edited by kaizen: Sep 9 2005, 09:38 PM

[nanyang]

Korea and Japan can be Allie easily. As Korean love Japanese pop culture and the Japanese also love them. And they share the same culture too.

[CJK]

im sure things would look great on paper...

but when it comes down to it i would imagine both sides having issues with handing a great amount of trust over to one another.