----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
civilization?
> At 17:08 13-8-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >What fraction of its GDP does Germany commit to its armed forces? What
> >fraction of its GDP does North Korea commit? Germany commits about 1%;
> >while North Korea commits 25% to 33%.
>
> Where do those figures come from?
>
Mostly from the CIA factbook. From the same source, S. Korea spends about
3% of their GDP on defense. Just write a country's name and CIA in the
search field of HotBot.
>
> >Doesn't that tell you something
> >about intent? Why spend yourself into the poorhouse on your armed forces
> >unless you intend to use them?
>
> It tells me that the North Korean leaders are scared shitless, and I can't
> really blame them.
Of what? The US hasn't attacked Cuba in 40 years. Its sending its
secretary of state to China and Viet Nam. It has only 37,000 troops in
South Korea. Are you suggesting that a rational person would think that the
US is likely to invade North Korea with 37,000 troops? We waited months
until we had about half a million troops before beginning the ground
campaign.
>They have the US military at their border, with an awful
> lot of firepower, and the capability to rapidly deploy more weapons and
> troops if necessary.
Are you seriously arguing that a reasonable person would think that 37,000
troops deployed against 1.2 million represent a dangerous attack force?
That North Korea would be at grave risk if their army were to shrink to
600,000?
Given the fact that communist countries don't exactly
> see the US as a nice, friendly, non-aggressive country, I believe that
North
> Korea, at least from their POV, has plenty of reason to spend a lot of
> money on their military.
Enough to ensure that their people starve? For a poor country like North
Korea, having about a third of their able bodied men in the armed forces is
an overwhelming investment. Actually, there is a much more realistic risk:
their people would want to reunite with South Korea. They see their
relatives as much more prosperous.
That is what I think they are scared shitless of: the prosperity of the
south. That is why they refuse free food. They are afraid that their
people will want reunification with the south, and that they will not be the
ones in charge of a reunified Korea.
>
> >There is an old saying "when you ain't got nothing, you ain't got nothing
to
> >lose." Things are bad enough in N. Korea for the leaders to think that
they
> >have nothing to lose.
>
> Wrong. They have their *power* to lose. The North Korean leaders know very
> well that if they should attack South Korea:
> (1) the US and South Korean forces will stop them before they can get very
> far, and
> (2) the US and South Korean will retaliate by invading North Korea, and
> won't stop till they have effectively taken over the country.
>
Well, so then the North Korean leadership will not order an invasion until
they think that its their only chance to stay in power, right? Think of why
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. The government was at risk of
falling, they ordered an invasion, and stayed for years basking in the
nationalistic fervor. With the grave risk of their people being willing to
deal with South Korea, what other choice would they have if they wanted to
stay in power but to roll the dice. Maybe, if they occupied Seoul they
could strike a deal to leave?
Also, as I will get to in another post, there are indications that their
posture is more offensive than defensive.
Dan M.
