At 22:55 13-8-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > (2) The only route for a North-Korean invasion force would be through a
> > mountain pass, which is controlled by the US and filled with anti-tank
>weapons.
>
>Well, one has to recall how many US troops there are in Korea: 37,000 in
>total. While everyone would agree that the US army is a lot better than the
>N. Korean army, a 30 to 1 advantage in manpower is pretty big.
>
>Also, you need to recall how many heavy pieces the N. Koreans have.
>According to
>
>http://libweb.uoregon.edu/asia/nk/nk1991/knfms_chp5.html
>
>they have 3500 medium and light tanks, 2000 multiple rocket launchers and
>8500 heavy artillery pieces. It is not clear to me that mobile anti-tank
>weapons will have a trivial time stopping these forces with the numerical
>odds that are against the US.
Dan, those are numbers for the *entire* North Korean military. I don't
think that North Korea has placed their entire military hardware at the
border with South Korea. That would leave the rest of the country
undefended; you don't have to be an expert on military strategy to see that
it would be extremely stupid to do something like that.
> > (3) The US has weapons (such as the very effective BAT gliders) that can
> > take out North Korea's tank columns before those tanks even reach the
> > border with South Korea.
>
>Then, why didn't they take out the Iraq tanks in the Gulf War? That has to
>be a lot easier, right? No clouds, etc.
Well, *I* wasn't the one to make that decision. Ask the warlords at the
Pentagon.
> > (4) Those weapons can be used without harming any US soldiers, and won't
> > hinder any US or South Korean troop movements.
> >
>
>But, the mines in question are either mapped out in the DMZ or our set to
>self-destruct in 2 weeks.
That does not include the up to 100,000 dumb US landmines the North Koreans
picked up and ran off with, and then used against the US. The US government
will most likely not have a map with the locations of every individual
landmine the North Koreans planted.
> >When you submit to a scientific journal an article about an invention you
> >made, and in that article you refer to an article that discusses an
> >earlier invention, do you include the details of that earlier invention? No
>you
> >don't, because if any of your readers are interested in those details,
> >they can look them up in that other article.
>
>On the net, you usually provide links.
Usually, yes. But last I heard, it wasn't mandatory. It may also be
possible that the report isn't available on-line.
>, and the fact that 26,000 civilians per year fall
> > victim to landmines, I think you have all the reason you need to ban
> > landmines entirely -- with no exceptions.
> >
>
>Then why did this treaty have exemptions for the European mines and not
>Americans.
I wasn't there, so I can't tell for sure. Maybe you should study the
proceedings of the convention.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
