A Nation of Racist Dwarfs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

What of the cost of maintaing the world's seventh largest army?

There are now far greater economic links between China and South Korea (That have taken decades to set up) than than there ever were between China and the DPRK, so it's hardly a source of economic wealth. It is entirely possible that if China has to bite the bullet that it would go for South Korea rather than the North if the North's destruction was imminent.

---

Honestly, given how expensive the annexation of Eastern Germany was, I doubt unifying North Korea will be an easy process. Especially since Eastern Germany was arguably the jewel of the eastern block, while North Korea is a dire poor ultra militarized country that only survives thanks to foreign help.

Eastern Germany was integrated in 1990, and it is still nowadays way poorer than Western Germany. Now, take the case of South and North Korea, with the South being probably 50 times wealthier, and you get the idea.

Honestly, I think this is a problem that will have to be solved either by North Koreans themselves or by China. Though I don't believe the whole "North Koreans worship KJI as a God and will happily die for him", I still think any military intervention is doomed to fail, without China's support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

It is a famous picturem, and you're pretty much correct. But I wonder when the picture was taken, as up until about 1991, North Koreans weren't that much worse off than their Southern cosuins.

---

Hmm. I know they were about equal about the time of the Korean war, but I believe they've been diverging ever since, and that by 1991 a difference would be apparent.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

One of the things visitors to North Korea notice is the total absence of any people with disabilities. :no:

---

Well, for instance, in Russia, we are still more mediaeval about it, or at least more so than in US. In US I see mentally disabled people everywhere, in school, in public places, or even working in jobs - low-level jobs of course, but even those jobs are a huge accommodation for those unfortunate fellows. The business that employ them are clearly losing money, and it does not take a genius to recognise that most people are uncomfortable around mentally disabled persons. Yet I still see those persons.

In Russia, it is more private. Such people are often kept in mental institutions or cared for inside the family's home. To send them to school would be unimaginable - although part of that is because Russian schools (or at least the city schools -I know not of how it is in the countryside) are ruthlessly tough and accommodating even for the normal kids. Still, Americans are very open about this, and it shows many things about the national character in general. I would think the socialising is good for the disabled people, although I am not sure whether sending them off to elementary or middle school is a good idea - I have seen those kids being taken advantage of and bullied too much to still think of it in positive terms.

It is difficult for me to say if the American approach is correct regarding kids, but I can without a doubt say that the society in general is more progressive, as mentally disabled people are accepted in the adult world, or at least officially. You do not see that in Russia. Not that there is a negative outlook on such unfortunate cases - we are not eugenicists, but no one is willing to put up with disabled people 'on the loose' as they told Dorothea Dix... We are not that far advanced yet.


North Korea can have similar situation to Russia - or hell, they likely have it much worse, as I doubt any nationality would care about the disabled when the healthy folk were starving and dying everywhere.

From this book; it says South Korea had the world's second fastest growing economy from 1960 to 1990. So they likely left North Korea behind at least by the 1960s.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Korea had the world's second fastest growing economy from 1960 to 1990. So they likely left North Korea behind at least by the 1960s.

---

:laugh4::laugh4:

This is why I dislike statistics, they can be mentioned without context. Japan was ahead of Korea, and in 1990 the bubble burst. They still have yet to recover. Of course, the Japanese economy is still the second-largest, but Korea could have easily been harder, theoretically speaking. Growth means nothing without the current total GDP. But, another of course would be that South Korea is certainly light-years ahead of DPRK, economically speaking.

Still, from the analyses I read, DPRK would squash South Korea if it ever came down to just them two, with no outside interference. Even with their outdated equipment, North Korea is still formidable. When the scales of balance were more even in the Korean war, DPRK captured nearly all but a small beachead of SK, smashing US, NATO and SK forces. Of course, then it was the Allies' turn, and they captured so much territory of DPRK that in some places, they were on Chinese soil...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

:laugh4::laugh4:

This is why I dislike statistics, they can be mentioned without context. Japan was ahead of Korea, and in 1990 the bubble burst. They still have yet to recover. Of course, the Japanese economy is still the second-largest, but Korea could have easily been harder, theoretically speaking. Growth means nothing without the current total GDP. But, another of course would be that South Korea is certainly light-years ahead of DPRK, economically speaking.

Still, from the analyses I read, DPRK would squash South Korea if it ever came down to just them two, with no outside interference. Even with their outdated equipment, North Korea is still formidable. When the scales of balance were more even in the Korean war, DPRK captured nearly all but a small beachead of SK, smashing US, NATO and SK forces. Of course, then it was the Allies' turn, and they captured so much territory of DPRK that in some places, they were on Chinese soil...

---

i am willing to put money on the fact the NK would not come even close to squashing SK now, or any time in the 21st century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i am willing to put money on the fact the NK would not come even close to squashing SK now, or any time in the 21st century.

---

Hmm, why do you say so? South Korea has no military tradition, their forces are unimaginable and average, in terms of leadership. Maybe even worse - from what I have read, they are not good, but whether they are average or actually bad, I do not know. In conventional, full-blown modern warfare, everything gets destroyed fast - an Abrams tank has an average life of two weeks, for instance, according to How to Make War by the renowned Dunningan.

Quantity has a quality of its own, especially when the South Koreans, while well endowed with their K1 tanks - Abrams copies with some modifications - are not much good in using what they have. They are not the top-notch US Marines who assaulted Iraq. They are also on the defensive, and that is not how the tanks should be employed - I hope to God they will not try what the Egyptians tried with Israelis in this regard...

I would not put my money on anyone as a matter of fact. But yes, the ROK is getting closer to a victory with each year - DPRK cannot sustain itself very well, not with its economic situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

:laugh4::laugh4:

This is why I dislike statistics, they can be mentioned without context. Japan was ahead of Korea, and in 1990 the bubble burst. They still have yet to recover. Of course, the Japanese economy is still the second-largest, but Korea could have easily been harder, theoretically speaking. Growth means nothing without the current total GDP. But, another of course would be that South Korea is certainly light-years ahead of DPRK, economically speaking.

Still, from the analyses I read, DPRK would squash South Korea if it ever came down to just them two, with no outside interference. Even with their outdated equipment, North Korea is still formidable. When the scales of balance were more even in the Korean war, DPRK captured nearly all but a small beachead of SK, smashing US, NATO and SK forces. Of course, then it was the Allies' turn, and they captured so much territory of DPRK that in some places, they were on Chinese soil...

---

:inquisitive:

The North Korean army outnumbered the South Korean forces by more than 2-1 at the start of the Korean war. And there weren't significant US forces in Korea before the start of the war.

What would happen if the US wasn't there now? I don't know, but every year that passes means North Korea gets weaker.

In terms of economies, I got a bunch of data from http://www.ggdc.net/ that said S Korea was ahead of N Korea in terms of GDP per capita from 1960 onwards.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The North Korean army outnumbered the South Korean forces by more than 2-1 at the start of the Korean war.

---

Not that much different now, even worse, technically, but ROK has the distinct technological advantage - a thousand K1s is going to be a tough nut to crack...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And there weren't significant US forces in Korea before the start of the war.

---

Hmm, that is a good question. I remember reading 'substantial forces', but how substantial - I do not know. It would be interesting if someone could find out - so far, I have no luck searching on the Internet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I don't know, but every year that passes means North Korea gets weaker.

---

Certainly true - I noted this in my previous as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

In terms of economies, I got a bunch of data from http://www.ggdc.net/ that said S Korea was ahead of N Korea in terms of GDP per capita from 1960 onwards.

---

I did not say I doubted that ROK was ahead of DPRK. That is obvious - and I stated so myself. I just could not resist a laugh due to the possibility of misrepresenting that statistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Hmm, why do you say so? South Korea has no military tradition, their forces are unimaginable and average, in terms of leadership. Maybe even worse - from what I have read, they are not good, but whether they are average or actually bad, I do not know. In conventional, full-blown modern warfare, everything gets destroyed fast - an Abrams tank has an average life of two weeks, for instance, according to How to Make War by the renowned Dunningan.

Quantity has a quality of its own, especially when the South Koreans, while well endowed with their K1 tanks - Abrams copies with some modifications - are not much good in using what they have. They are not the top-notch US Marines who assaulted Iraq. They are also on the defensive, and that is not how the tanks should be employed - I hope to God they will not try what the Egyptians tried with Israelis in this regard...

I would not put my money on anyone as a matter of fact. But yes, the ROK is getting closer to a victory with each year - DPRK cannot sustain itself very well, not with its economic situation.

---

consulting my copy of the 2008 Strategic Balance from the IISS tels me otherwise.

NK has a population of 22 million peasants, versus SK which includes 46 million of the most technologically advanced people on the planet.

NK has 3,500 tanks, none of them newer than T59 vintage, where as SK has 1,000 MI A2 class tanks (in addition to 1,300 others which SK probably wouldn't even bring out of reserve)

NK has 950,00 army personnel versus SK with 630,000

and SK has spent the last 40 years training with the latest american strategic doctrine, and just spent the last two years massively boosting defence spending in anticipation of taking over strategic command of South Korean defence.

against those odds NK is going to get slaughtered!

those K1 tanks are going to have at LEAST a 10-1 advantage against any NK armoured units that venture across the border.

Seaul would get absolutely hammered for about 24 hours before the SK airforce and antiquated NK logistics made the artillary fall silent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Eastern Germany was integrated in 1990, and it is still nowadays way poorer than Western Germany. Now, take the case of South and North Korea, with the South being probably 50 times wealthier, and you get the idea.

---

It's way beyond that now. I don't know the exact number, but it was about 57 in the early 2000's. The fact that North Korea doesn't use GDP as a statistic of wealth/growth complicates matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Hmm. I know they were about equal about the time of the Korean war, but I believe they've been diverging ever since, and that by 1991 a difference would be apparent.

CR

---

Northern Korea was already more industrialised than the south, as it has more natural resources than the rice fields of the south. Growth rates in North Korea just after the Korean War were phenomenal (IIRC, it was over 45% in one three year period), and outstripped the South's later performance. Meanwhile, the South failed to industrialise seriously until the 60's, and incomes probably reached equal levels in the 70's. After that, the South roared ahead, leaving the DPRK in the dust. Still, living standards remained similar until about 1988.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

From this book; it says South Korea had the world's second fastest growing economy from 1960 to 1990. So they likely left North Korea behind at least by the 1960s.
CR

---

As I mentioned in my first post, I have recently written a twelve page essay on a comparison between the economies of North and South Korea since 1953 (Which I could email anyone, if were they interested). On the next page it mentions that the North grew faster than the South in that time period.

But of course, that's not really relevant today.

Quote:

---

The North Korean army outnumbered the South Korean forces by more than 2-1 at the start of the Korean war. And there weren't significant US forces in Korea before the start of the war.

---

Plus, the South Koreans had no heavy armour/artillery, whilst the Northerners had the latest Soviet tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

consulting my copy of the 2008 Strategic Balance from the IISS tels me otherwise.

NK has a population of 22 million peasants, versus SK which includes 46 million of the most technologically advanced people on the planet.

NK has 3,500 tanks, none of them newer than T59 vintage, where as SK has 1,000 MI A2 class tanks (in addition to 1,300 others which SK probably wouldn't even bring out of reserve)

NK has 950,00 army personnel versus SK with 630,000

and SK has spent the last 40 years training with the latest american strategic doctrine, and just spent the last two years massively boosting defence spending in anticipation of taking over strategic command of South Korean defence.

against those odds NK is going to get slaughtered!

those K1 tanks are going to have at LEAST a 10-1 advantage against any NK armoured units that venture across the border.

---

All this is true, which is why I quieted down after my first post here, after I did a quick statistics-check on the Internet. I will have to dig out those analysis and see what the authors have to say...

But yes, you are correct, and from what you say - which is exactly the same I read as well, it does seem that DPRK is in for a likely defeat.

I can swear you beat me here, but I am still wondering why the authors I read thought so differently. Probably the date. The stuff I read was from early nineties, sometimes even late eighties... ROK did not have K1, back then, since K1 was developed in '88 I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

All this is true, which is why I quieted down after my first post here, after I did a quick statistics-check on the Internet. I will have to dig out those analysis and see what the authors have to say...

But yes, you are correct, and from what you say - which is exactly the same I read as well, it does seem that DPRK is in for a likely defeat.

I can swear you beat me here, but I am still wondering why the authors I read thought so differently. Probably the date. The stuff I read was from early nineties, sometimes even late eighties... ROK did not have K1, back then, since K1 was developed in '88 I believe.

---

to give you an idea of the shear level of force overmatch take a look at tank kills in the gulf war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1

The challenger 1, which is now inferior to to south korean tanks scored a 300:0 kill ratio against iraqi armoured vehicles, which is not a bad comparison against north korean armoury.

decent main-guns and advanced fire-control means that 'western' tanks can be killing T59's at a range of 5.1km, wheras the NK's would have to close to within 2km to even have a chance of hitting a barn, and even then it would likely do little damage to a modern 'western' tank.

and it takes a surprisingly long time for a tank to clear that 3.1km kill-zone!

ah the tank isnt even the most deciding factor.

Its the airforce in my opinion and possibly the navy. The s. koreans support roles are so superior to the n. koreans that the numerical advantage of the n. koreans wouldnt even matter in the end.

I just want to point out from an earlier post in thread you have, AP, while I am reluctant because you withdrew your arguement. However, if both sides had no foreign support the s. koreans would have the advantage. Can you imagine a N. Korea not propped up by China. The US could leave S. Korea alone and they would function well enough, The N. koreans, not so much.


What authors have you read? I have read a lot of military theory and thought that S. Korea's military dominance was commonly accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

to give you an idea of the shear level of force overmatch take a look at tank kills in the gulf war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1

The challenger 1, which is now inferior to to south korean tanks scored a 300:0 kill ratio against iraqi armoured vehicles, which is not a bad comparison against north korean armoury.

decent main-guns and advanced fire-control means that 'western' tanks can be killing T59's at a range of 5.1km, wheras the NK's would have to close to within 2km to even have a chance of hitting a barn, and even then it would likely do little damage to a modern 'western' tank.

and it takes a surprisingly long time for a tank to clear that 3.1km kill-zone!

---

Yes, but now you are going where I do not like. Tactics, tactics, tactics. The Wermacht beat the best tanks in the world with their Panzer I, II, some IIIs and a load of captured Czech tanks. Of course, DPRK is no Wermacht - the two could not be farther, but the Invasion of Iraq was not a balanced war, even if the Iraqis had very large numerical superiority. Individual arms analyses strike me as sort of immature, although I know this is not true in your case, especially since you are wholly correct.

Look, I conceded to you, but... Argh, I have to go, I will finish this later. Anyhow, it was very stupid of me to rush into this thread with outdated info, and I was crushed by you :bow:.


EDIT: Shoot, Centurion is here too. Like I said, I will be back in half and hour or so, but I have to go now. :yes:

The DPRK isn't all it's hyped up to be...

Food for thought. The DPRK is not an opaque monolith of Big Brother proportions. On the contrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AP

Still, from the analyses I read, DPRK would squash South Korea if it ever came down to just them two, with no outside interference. Even with their outdated equipment, North Korea is still formidable. When the scales of balance were more even in the Korean war, DPRK captured nearly all but a small beachead of SK, smashing US, NATO and SK forces. Of course, then it was the Allies' turn, and they captured so much territory of DPRK that in some places, they were on Chinese soil...

---

Dude, read up on your military affairs for God's sake. That's 50 years ago and the current KPA is a rusting shell with shortages growing out of every armpit. The ROK military is, pound-for-pound, the best in all of Asia. Full stop. The KPA's worse off than the 2003 Iraqi military, and we all saw what happened to that when it got faced with a well-oiled military machine at full steam. Stop dreaming.

Eagerly waiting your return *rubs hands together*

well the wehrmacht won with their mucnhkin tanks because of strategy. The french and british did not know how to properly place their tanks and when their lines were broken through it was because of overwhelming numbers of panzers which crushed their superior tanks through better strategy, training, and vetrean panzer crews.

It is rather shocking the allies didn't expect this kind of assault after witnessing the proxy war in Spain.

Recommended reading- Hitlers War by Harry Turtledove. Great Alternate Reality novel. So what if it didnt actually happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Recommended reading- Hitlers War by Harry Turtledove. Great Alternate Reality novel. So what if it didnt actually happen.

---

You read Turtledove?? He is my absolute favourite!! As much as he wrote, I have read every single one of his short stories and novels, save for the hardcore fantasy. But Hitler's War is a recent book, so I have not read it yet. I have read The Man with the Iron Heart though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

The DPRK isn't all it's hyped up to be...

Food for thought. The DPRK is not an opaque monolith of Big Brother proportions. On the contrary.



Dude, read up on your military affairs for God's sake. That's 50 years ago and the current KPA is a rusting shell with shortages growing out of every armpit. The ROK military is, pound-for-pound, the best in all of Asia. Full stop. The KPA's worse off than the 2003 Iraqi military, and we all saw what happened to that when it got faced with a well-oiled military machine at full steam. Stop dreaming.

---

Yeah, I know, read all my other posts here. I conceded the debate.

This has to be my worst (and only, AFAIK, or so I hope) fiasco in the Backroom. I jumped into this thread armed with late 80's and ealry 90's knowledge. You see, I do not trust anything having to do with the military on the Internet, so all my knowledge on modern warfare comes from books. The deep strategic analysis books I can download on the Internet or get in the library are rather outdated or about older times, even if they are newer. They suited me well, and I chose the more reliable authors, instead of gobbling up just anything. This approach is alright for a history student like me, but it serves me poorly in the knowledge of news.

As you can see here, this type of knowledge was an embarrassment in this situation. EDIT: but no, the stuff is not fifty years old. The books I read were no older than 25 years old.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

NK has a population of 22 million peasants, versus SK which includes 46 million of the most technologically advanced people on the planet.

---

Sorry, as much as you are correct, I cannot resist to make a snipe at this particular point. :laugh4:

Yeah, I bet playing Starcraft like a shameless geek and being devout Christians really helped the South Koreans militarily :laugh4:. I mean, technological advancement correlates pretty nicely with how soft a nation is. And here is some different food for thought: the weaker North Koreans starved in the catastrophic famines of the 90s. If anything, the citizens of DPRK are one of the toughest, wiliest survivalists in the world, especially since unlike so many other countries, aid to North Korea, while significant, is proportionally minuscule compared to all the other poverty-stricken nations.Three-fifths of the countries in the word receive some aid from one another, but North Korea is left the most short-handed in terms of helpers.

ROK soldiers will complain if they do not get three full meals a day or a laptop when not on active duty. A North Korean will be very thankful for one full OECD-style meal a day with little else needed but some warm clothing during the winter or for sleeping with. This may be a slight exaggeration, but not far. Of course, DPRK is still likely to lose, but do not deride their citizens, for they are one tough folk.

While technologically advanced population is useful on the 'home front', South Korea is too small and has too much too close to the un-DMZ line - Seoul and Incheon spring to mind immediately, and they alone carry around around 35-60% of ROK's industries. That will get destroyed quickly. And with the numerous more tunnels under the so-called DMZ, much industrial capacity will be disrupted and shelled/bombed -out. At least Busan and Daegu (I am not sure how the city is in terms of industry though) is safe, but who knows what the DPRK's navy and air force is capable of, even if it is suicidal. DPRK knows it has to pound Seoul, Busan, and Incheon quickly, because that is most of ROK, speaking economically.

Yeah i really liked man with an iron heart very good novel. obvious parallels to Iraq.

I want to call upon one point. N. Korean soldiers will have far less initiative and much worse training than the s. koreans. This makes up for a natural survival instinct which is debatable.

Compare it to say Germany v. Russia WW2. The russians mostly won because Germany overextended themselves, numbers, late technological advancement, and underestimation of Russian winters and Russian determination. Thanks to Stalins purges in the 30's the Russian generals left were complete idiots while the Germans were well trained experienced leaders of men. Honestly, the S. Koreans have more war time experience than do the n. korean counterparts if not at least because of numerous UN actions. I also believe they are in the middle east but do not quote me on that i could very well be wrong and im too lazy to look it up.

As to the DPRK navy and air force if you want to call it that....... laughable. The S. Koreans have some form of the F series fighter. (probably comparable to f-15 or 16) true not the F-22 super hornet or the new JSF but nothing to sneeze at. The North in comparison probably has vietnam era migs. And once again the s. koreans have superior training and experience. And when your in a highly advanced jet fighter training is everything as my dad likes to say. Well that and good eyesight.

Their navy is even worse. I've heard my Dad make jokes about how once when doing flyovers in the Pacific (he flew s-3 a subhunter) his squadron encountered a korean fighting ship....... he had to do a second fly by because he thought it was just a rusted out civilian ship. And since this was the 1980's cold war era i doubt the situation has improved.

Yah, I know the Koreans have a joke of a Navy/Air Force, and that is why I said their attacks would have to be suicidal. But they can try.

But an F-series fighter? 'F' stands for 'fighter'... 'Fighter' series 'fighter? :tongue: 'F' fighters go back to the forties, if not before... 'F' fighter is what the F-86 Sabre was, the one that famously fought MIG-15s in the last Korean War...

And please do not go to Germany vs. USSR... 'Complete idiots'? Read up Glantz - he is the prime Western authority of the Eastern Front...

Alomost all of America's fighters are designated F. Yeah so oops my bad but what i am saying is they probably use an F-15 or 16 which is very advanced and no nation would be ashamed to fly. I believe the Israelis use f-16 and we know all about their air force dont we.

The NK's might be able to pound Seoul etc. flat -- they certainly are in range -- but that assumes that the tubes live long enough to fire the required number of shots. I'd assume radar tracking of the inbound shells and a little reverse ballistics calculation would reveal the locations for counter-battery fire and airstrikes. With a likely air superiority and good fire control on their own arty, the SK's should be able to curtail the worst of such an attack quickly.

NK has lots of armor, but the SK's have been trained on better tanks using the classic "shoot and scoot" defensive doctrine. That's how we trained the 1st AD to help defend the Fulda Gap and we were expecting odds of way more than 3.5 to one. Between that and the relatively limited amounts of open terrain, I do not think a NK breakthrough likely.

The problem with NK is "the line." I'm not exactly sure where that line is on the map (I hope to heavens our G2 people do, but after the WMD's of Iraq, I am always a little skeptical), but heading North of that line buys you a heap of tank armies with "made in china" labels on them.

I have so many good articles on china military strength because of my dads occupation but they are mostly naval. Chinese tanks are highly overrated though and the vast majority are antiquated and cannot stand against superior s. korean tanks. The thing i would worry about is if the chinese start selling a capable air force to the North. Thier new mig could rival a US f-22. Not that they would ever sell that plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Yeah, I bet playing Starcraft like a shameless geek and being devout Christians really helped the South Koreans militarily :laugh4:. I mean, technological advancement correlates pretty nicely with how soft a nation is. And here is some different food for thought: the weaker North Koreans starved in the catastrophic famines of the 90s. If anything, the citizens of DPRK are one of the toughest, wiliest survivalists in the world, especially since unlike so many other countries, aid to North Korea, while significant, is proportionally minuscule compared to all the other poverty-stricken nations..

---

The strongest? The famine in North Korea was not caused primarily by a lack of food. Statistics from Famine in North Korea: Markets Aid and Reform by Stephen Haggard et al show that the amount of food produced in North Korea Never dropped below the minimum human need. The problem was in the distribution of the food, which I explain in greater depth in my essay. To sum it up, the farmers hid their food in the barns, resulting in food not entering the "Public Distribution System", and when it did, it was distributed to the soldiers first. This meant that the middle classes and industrial workers in the cities starved, whilst the farmers in the countryside did OK. It's the only famine in history where that phenomenon has been recorded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

While technologically advanced population is useful on the 'home front', South Korea is too small and has too much too close to the un-DMZ line - Seoul and Incheon spring to mind immediately, and they alone carry around around 35-60% of ROK's industries. That will get destroyed quickly. And with the numerous more tunnels under the so-called DMZ, much industrial capacity will be disrupted and shelled/bombed -out. At least Busan and Daegu (I am not sure how the city is in terms of industry though) is safe, but who knows what the DPRK's navy and air force is capable of, even if it is suicidal. DPRK knows it has to pound Seoul, Busan, and Incheon quickly, because that is most of ROK, speaking economically.

---

Busan and Daegu have most of the rest, as the political elites in South Korea mostly hailed from that region (As most of the other elites in South Korea were either killed or de-elitised by the DPRK), and thus put most of their investment into that region.

Quote:

---

The problem with NK is "the line." I'm not exactly sure where that line is on the map (I hope to heavens our G2 people do, but after the WMD's of Iraq, I am always a little skeptical), but heading North of that line buys you a heap of tank armies with "made in china" labels on them.

---

Well, Mao Zedong decided to intervene in Korea the moment the UN crossed the 38th Parallel, so I'm guessing it's a pretty close line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

The strongest? The famine in North Korea was not caused primarily by a lack of food. Statistics from Famine in North Korea: Markets Aid and Reform by Stephen Haggard et al show that the amount of food produced in North Korea Never dropped below the minimum human need. The problem was in the distribution of the food, which I explain in greater depth in my essay. To sum it up, the farmers hid their food in the barns, resulting in food not entering the "Public Distribution System", and when it did, it was distributed to the soldiers first. This meant that the middle classes and industrial workers in the cities starved, whilst the farmers in the countryside did OK. It's the only famine in history where that phenomenon has been recorded.

---

Still the strongest, with the exception of those who could use their high(er) position, quite obviously. Farmers are stronger than the city-dwellers, and tougher. Then, in the cities, the strongest survived, albeit the exception I already mentioned. Simple. Albeit another exception that women require less sustenance, but that is evened out by men's tougher physique and the fact that women will then give birth to children, which replenishes the population and evens out the ratio (more boys born, which may be counteracted by the fact that more girls are born to lower BMI women, making the ratio even - but this is very, very recent knowledge).

All generalisations, but that is what one has to do when counting demographics. In any case, it is common evolutionary (both very short and long) sense that such stresses root out the weaker species. Cold logic, but I cannot see why the sickly and disabled children/adults would not die first in the North Korean famines. Same goes for the elderly, who should have died en masse - I doubt even the Eastern filial piety saved them when things sunk to such a semi-Darwinian jungle.

Which brings me to another point that while the rich Japan is already greying, it will do so even more. ROK following a similar, but less intense trend. The low life expectancy and the famines mean a younger population, as evidenced by all poverty-stricken nations of the world. DPRK does not conform to this birth trend as well, but well enough compared to First World, IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

All generalisations, but that is what one has to do when counting demographics. In any case, it is common evolutionary (both very short and long) sense that such stresses root out the weaker species. Cold logic, but I cannot see why the sickly and disabled children/adults would not die first in the North Korean famines. Same goes for the elderly, who should have died en masse - I doubt even the Eastern filial piety saved them when things sunk to such a semi-Darwinian jungle.
.

---

given that the title of this thread is: "A Nation of Racist Dwarfs" we can see that an evolutionary cull is clearly under way, though i am not sure how it is to prove beneficial to the fighting prowess of NK............?

Dwarfs or Dwarves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Dwarfs or Dwarves?

---

You know, either would be correct, but the latter is a bit more archaic.

Since Tolkien Dwarves has come to be used more frequently with fantasy dwarf races. Dwarfs is still the term associated with dwarfism.

given their penchant for tunnelling underneath other peoples countries the tolkien route does not seem totally inappropriate, although i don't agree that they are particularly stout and doughty warriors a-la my beloved Gimli, son of Gloin. :D