North Korea's Air Force and The Bomb

Since I'm tired of reading questions about the development of
anti-matter-powered Beechcraft ejection seats, I thought I'd toss this
topic onto the newsgroup's platter: North Korea.

In pondering why we (the US -- and the World) haven't responded more
forcefully to the North Korean nuclear tests, which seem to confirm our
greatest fears, I found the following tid-bits of information:

- That tiny country (smaller than the state of Mississippi) has an air
force comprised of 1,620 combat aircraft, and 274 helicopters!
- They've got over 8,800 anti-aircraft guns
- They're fielding a 1,000,000-man military force, with a population of
just 23 million
- They have just 36 paved-runway airports
- Their GDP is just $40 billion per year -- far less than Bill Gates is
worth, personally.
- Some of their planes are stationed just 6 minutes' flight from Seoul

Their pilot training is apparently abyssmal, thanks to fuel and spare
parts shortages. (One estimate shows that their pilots are flying just
7 hours per YEAR.) However, they have fielded an incredible fighting
force, at the expense of virtually all else. They have suffered 11
straight years of food shortages, and are able to feed themselves only
because of outside aid -- yet they persist in developing incredibly
expensive weapons systems, like missiles and atomic bombs.

In short, these folks are truly, really scary. I honestly didn't think
much of them, until recently, but I now fully understand their "axis of
evil" designation -- and why we're hesitating to react.

Here are some decent sources of more information:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...k/airforce.htm
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/kn.html

So what should we do? Nothing? That seems to be the United Nation's
current "strategy"...but I don't see much hope in that approach.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
snip

One of the worst thing about the "war on terror" (besides the fact I've
lost hundreds of dollars in toiletries) is that it distracts us from
situations like North Korea.

I am supposed to go to Seoul in December for business and I can't say
that it's something I'm looking forward to.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
They have suffered 11
straight years of food shortages, and are able to feed themselves only
because of outside aid --

Haven't really kept up on this as I know I should, but to me, the foreign
aid should be the first thing to stop!
Crash Lander

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:42:03 GMT, "Crash Lander" wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
They have suffered 11
straight years of food shortages, and are able to feed themselves only
because of outside aid --

Haven't really kept up on this as I know I should, but to me, the foreign
aid should be the first thing to stop!

Well, you're posting in the wrong language, then. China is still NK's primary
supporter. The recent UN resolution basically eliminates luxury items.

And...nuclear weapons aside...all local nations want to maintain the status quo.
No one wants the repression in North Korea to end. South Korea doesn't want to
have to take care 23 million starving North Koreans nor erect a modern
infrastructure from scratch, nor does China, nor Japan, nor even the US.

You can take a look at:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../dprk-dark.htm

....and see what the challenge would be. The country that invades NK is stuck
with moving them out of the 19th Century. The UN will wring its hands, it'll
eventually figure out a way to bribe Kim to supress the nukes, but you won't
find any serious effort to oust Kim and the Party.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote...
..... China is still NK's primary supporter. The recent UN
resolution basically eliminates luxury items.

I think this is a good thing. The ruling class in NK should be the ones
targeted. Hunting down and freezing their offshore assets will limit their
options even more and "convince" them to move their positions. The
leadership in NK is living very well "relatively speaking" and presently
have no incentive for change.

China worries about a trickle of illegal immigration turning into a mass
flood.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061016/...a_nkorea_fence

In the long run, China might benefit from South Korea reunifying with the
north. That would put a hugh hurt on the South Korean economy (see Germany),
and China could come out the big winner (can you say Marshall Plan).

The first thing I would do is talk to the Chinese. Show them a map. Explain
that you might be "Downwind" of North Korea pretty soon, do you want to do
that? You know, that wind that glows in the dark.
ron



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Ron Snipes" wrote in message
.. .
The first thing I would do is talk to the Chinese. Show them a map. Explain
that you might be "Downwind" of North Korea pretty soon, do you want to do
that? You know, that wind that glows in the dark.
ron

You presume that the Chinese leadership gives a crap if a couple million of
their citizens are affected by nuclear fallout. It takes a lot more than
that to scare them.

The Beijing cabal may be smarter than Kim Jong Il, but they take a back seat
to no one in their cynical disregard for anything that does not line their
pockets or further their ambitions in the region.

They are working this crisis for all it's worth to turn it to their
advantage. Look for them to try to get some kind of diplomatic concessions
in exchange for bringing pressure on N. Korea. If I were the Taiwanese, I'd
be sweating.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On 15 Oct 2006 17:23:47 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

So what should we do? Nothing? That seems to be the United Nation's
current "strategy"...but I don't see much hope in that approach.


The world (ie the UN) is going to nothing, which is exactly what they
are doing with Iran. They just passed a meaningless resolution that not
only will not be enforced by any other country, but will bring the USA a
huge amount of criticism if they actually do anything.

Unfortunately the entire world is going to be working against the USA as
long as Bush is president. This is a sad and stupid fact, but it's true,
and America's enemies know it. The best thing about President H. Clinton
is that only a Democrat will get any cooperation from the rest of the
world. Even then, it will probably not be enough to save Western
civilization.

So enjoy your flying while it is still possible (ie we have both the
healthy economy and freedom of action necessary to support it). It is
only in the Anglosphere that private pilots like me can fly at will
(without being stinking rich). I hope this state of affairs will last a
few more years yet, but eventually our enemies will set off some nukes
and put the world into a severe depression.

Oh, and have a nice day :-)



randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

randall g wrote:
On 15 Oct 2006 17:23:47 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:


So what should we do? Nothing? That seems to be the United Nation's
current "strategy"...but I don't see much hope in that approach.



The world (ie the UN) is going to nothing, which is exactly what they
are doing with Iran. They just passed a meaningless resolution that not
only will not be enforced by any other country, but will bring the USA a
huge amount of criticism if they actually do anything.

Unfortunately the entire world is going to be working against the USA as
long as Bush is president. This is a sad and stupid fact, but it's true,
and America's enemies know it. The best thing about President H. Clinton
is that only a Democrat will get any cooperation from the rest of the
world. Even then, it will probably not be enough to save Western
civilization.

You mean like the cooperation that Billy Clinton got from North Korea?
The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Billy believed the North
Koreans would actually stick totheir agreements. Bush knows they won't
so he isn't willing to make any unilateral agreements with them.
Personally, I don't think we have a dog in this fight until they have a
weapon that can reach US soil. And even then, I don't think a
pre-emptive attack is the right strategy. We didn't attack Russia in
the 50s did we?

I think pre-emptively attacking Iran has proven to be a huge mistake and
I believe that North Korea would love nothing more than to sucker us
into something similar there. The folks that have a dog in this fight
are China, South Korea, Japan, etc. Let them police this one.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote:


I think pre-emptively attacking Iran has proven to be a huge mistake and I
believe that North Korea would love nothing more than to sucker us into
something similar there. The folks that have a dog in this fight are
China, South Korea, Japan, etc. Let them police this one.



Amen.

--
Dan

"Fiction was invented the day Jonah arrived home and told his wife
that he was three days late because he had been swallowed by a
whale."
-Gabriel Garcia Marquez