WaPo: N. Korea Severs All Ties with Rival S. Korea

[AsburySkinsFan]

Admitting that part of me (the really stupid part) thinks it would be really neat if one (or two. Or all.) of NK's submarines were to mysteriously disappear.

While it would be nice to remove those teeth, gotta remember that the subs are NK's baby teeth, their big teeth are much more deadly and they are IMO the only reason that SK hasn't already hit NK in response to the sinking.

[thebluefood]

Boy, between Israel, Iran, our two wars in the Middle East, and this, Asia's just full of problems. I really hope the armistice doesn't come to an abrupt end.

[thebluefood]

I just pray if war does break out, they don't reinstate the draft. I don't know if we have enough service people to fight on three separate fronts without a draft.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I just pray if war does break out, they don't reinstate the draft. I don't know if we have enough service people to fight on three separate fronts without a draft.

Not to mention that if we're in three places at once then Iran might get some ideas of their own and start trying to destabilize Iraq again.

[thebluefood]

I guess I'm kind of spooked about it since I am 19 and of decent build (six and a half feet tall, about 230-240. I'm a college student and I know it's not likely to happen, but things seem to be coming together and we have so many commitments over seas.

I dunno, I'm in terrible shape, so I'll probably 4-F anyway.

[Larry]

"Got good and drunk, the night before, so that I looked and felt my best."

[/musical reference]

[thebluefood]

"Got good and drunk, the night before, so that I looked and felt my best."

[/musical reference]

That sounds so familiar, but I can't remember where it's from.

Besides, I'm in such terrible shape, the army wouldn't want me, anyway.

[Larry]

"Alice's Restaurant"

IMO, the best anti-war, anti-draft song ever to come out of the 60s, or any other time. Strongly recommend you listen to it.

(And then after you've listened to it several times, listen to the 30th Anniversary version, which contains a really incredible joke in it.)

[thebluefood]

"Alice's Restaurant"

IMO, the best anti-war, anti-draft song ever to come out of the 60s, or any other time. Strongly recommend you listen to it.

(And then after you've listened to it several times, listen to the 30th Anniversary version, which contains a really incredible joke in it.)

I'm kind of partial to County Joe McDonald's "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die," personally.

[Predicto]

I'm kind of partial to County Joe McDonald's "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die," personally.

Other great protest songs include CSNY's "Ohio," Jefferson Airplane's "Volunteers," Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On," Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction," Bob Dylan's "Blowin in the Wind" and "Masters of War," and Edwin Star's "War (what is it good for?)"

[thebluefood]

Every time I hear "Volunteers" I think about American Revolution.

I'm not sure why. Probably because of the first line of the song (Look what's happenin' out in the streets/Got a revolution). I SERIOUSLY doubt that's the meaning behind the song, though.

But, yeah...if things go down in Korea, I REALLY hope this doesn't set off a chain reaction that includes reinstating the draft (among other things). As strange as it sounds, every time my dad and I talk, that always comes up. It scares him to death. He narrowly avoided the draft himself in the early '70s.

[zoony]

Every time I hear "Volunteers" I think about American Revolution.

blasphemy

[Mad Mike]

As a point of general information. If there is an open conflict, I doubt it would mean a draft. I would expect it to be a short but very bloody fight. The north would inflict a lot of initial damage and casualties but their forces would be decimated soon after. All bets are off if they were crazy enough to go nuclear, but then it would not require more troops to turn the north into a radioactive parking lot.

[thebluefood]

As a point of general information. If there is an open conflict, I doubt it would mean a draft. I would expect it to be a short but very bloody fight. The north would inflict a lot of initial damage and casualties but their forces would be decimated soon after. All bets are off if they were crazy enough to go nuclear, but then it would not require more troops to turn the north into a radioactive parking lot.

I suppose so. I don't know all the details, but I do know North Korea is WAY out of their league if they're going to mess with South Korea (and, consequently, us).

[Hubbs]

I think there's a big difference between firing on a US ally, and firing on US troops. Also, a base gives us an immediate and logistically optimal place to put more troops if we decide to send them.

Would there be a difference in the level of public outrage? Absolutely. Would there be a difference in our military response? No. And we wouldn't have our bases anymore within a few hours unless the North's attack was so ineffective that it couldn't even get past the DMZ, which would mean that the South had already won and would soon be occupying Pyongyang. (And actually, even if that were to happen, our runways would be completely inoperable after being turned into rubble by the thousands upon thousands of Northern artillery pieces that have pre-sighted every square inch of land we use there.)

The key to getting an American army on the ground in the case of invasion is RoK troops holding onto the ports at the southern end of the peninsula.

One could argue that those regional flare-ups didn't become full-scale global wars because the US had (and has) a strong military presence around the world and unmatched military capacity. I don't think it mere coincidence that the major powers of the world have currently managed to stay at peace with each other for the largest stretch of time since the days of the Roman Empire.

I can see the libertarians circling so let me just say now that I'm all for bringing down our defense budget now that the cold war is over. But if anyone is arguing that we should go back to having the 17th largest military in the world (as we did before WW2) and adopting a policy of strict isolationism I'm going to have to disagree.

I'm struggling to see how a lack of American intervention in Korea would have led to WWIII. I have the same struggle with Vietnam. The best case that can be made is the shield our troops provided for Europe, and that has little relation to the pre-WWI era because American forces were protecting half of a continent that, due to the devastation of WWII, was physically incapable of protecting itself. I'd say the fact that there has never been an all-out war between two nuclear powers is far less of a coincidence.

And I think you may be overestimating what at least some of us are saying as far as reining in our military is concerned. I won't speak for anybody else, but judging by some posts I've seen in other threads, I wouldn't be surprised if blue and the like hold a similar view to my own. I have absolutely no desire to see our military become the 17th-largest in the world, or to mothball all but two of our aircraft carriers, or to destroy all of our nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite, really - I'm a big fan of the "walk softly but carry a big stick" mantra. However, we try to have a presence all over the world, and in many cases it's completely unnecessary. We have less than 100,000 troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq, yet we're told that the military is being stretched too thin. And while we'll eventually withdraw a good chunk of our active soldiers from both countries, odds are that we'll be establishing some form of permanent presence in both as well, adding them to a very long list. A very long, very expensive list.

And yes, we libertarians have carefully rehearsed our flanking maneuvers.