Moonbox

Hey, you're the one who started whining about armchair general and make-believe defense expert comments! I'm suggesting that it wouldn't take them long to build one. The point is neither here nor there, however, since the only reason they don't have one is because of American pressure and assurances that South Korea falls under the umbrella of American deterrence. It IS bluster, with the number of North Korean batteries actually capable of hitting Seoul nowhere near the oft-quoted 13,000 figure and with the damage and death-toll massively exaggerated. Not only is there room for about 20,000,000 people in underground shelters, but up to 1/4 of North Korean shells turn out to be duds. Yes, there would be significant damage. Yes, thousands would die, but the catastrophic flattening is wildly ignorant hyperbole and misinformation. No, you're just pretending to have a clue and pretending to be an expert. First, North Korea isn't capable of carpet bombing Seoul. Second, large-scale strategic bombing is far more destructive than sustained artillery, so your point is doubly obtuse. Leningrad was besieged and bombarded for almost three years, with the Germans firing point-blank into the city throughout. It wasn't flattened and it didn't fall, and the vast, overwhelming majority of casualties were due to starvation and deprivation. You understand that firing from 35-miles away means a lot of shells land in parks, streets, on top of each other, on rubble, in rivers etc? You understand that Seoul is a 605 square kilometer area that would require a volume of sustained bombardment that due to practical, logistical and retaliatory measures, North Korea simply isn't capable of maintaining? More armchair-general bluster, from a guy who makes it painfully obvious he hasn't done the math himself.

Changing our electoral system to "shake things up" isn't a very compelling argument.

Those aren't insults. Those are facts. You are not a defense expert, grossly mistaking being an enthusiast for being an actual authority. That you find the comment insulting is likely because your ego was bruised. Sorry! I implied the North Korean state wouldn't last long in the event that it nuked Seoul. Not only would Chinese troops likely be in Pyonyang before you blinked, South Korea's latent nuclear capabilities far surpass that of the North and they very likely would and could launch a counter-strike in short order, being a paranuclear nation a proverbial "screwdriver's turn" from assembling a bomb. Once again, I didn't say or imply that. I simply said that the idea of Seoul being flattened or even destroyed is gross exaggeration, stemming from Pyonyang's typical bluster and the media's penchant for sensationalism. A self-styled defense expert like you should know better. The ability of North Korea to shell Seoul was never questioned Derek, nor was anything even said that remotely suggested that. It was made VERY CLEAR that the effectiveness of the bombardment was in question. There have been enough industrial-era sieges (both in WW2 and beyond) to show us how long it ACTUALLY takes to 'flatten' a city with artillery bombardment. Look it up and get a clue. You vastly overestimate the accuracy of 170mm field guns firing over 35 miles away as well as the ability of FOO teams to remain hidden and provide worthwhile information, especially since the guns would be shooting and scooting the whole time rather than maintaining constant barrages.

Not like our resident make-believe expert, right!? That's a bunch of armchair-general gobbledygook, little more than deluded bluster about how much of an expert you think you are. /yawn With nukes, yes, but that would be the end of them. With their artillery? Only if you listen to North Korean bluster. A city doesn't just crumble into dust the minute it starts getting hit with artillery, especially not one as big as Seoul and when the bombardment is blind-fire from 35+ miles away. The idea of Seoul being 'flattened' by North Korea is scary hyperbole, vastly underestimating the amount of shelling required to reach the sort of densities you're talking about. I would have expected an expert like you to know better.

Except that's not at all true for the US. They spend almost as much on R&D as the Russians do on their entire military, and only ~25% on military personnel. Regardless, Desert Storm taught us very clearly that the number of soldiers aren't really effective measures of strength. The 650,000-strong Iraqi army managed to kill less than 250 coalition soldiers while being systematically torn apart. but with no comparisons to Russian or Chinese spending statistics, you're conclusions are wild assumptions. You're also ignoring how the vast majority of the US military budget is actually spent on research, procurement and operations/maintenance, all of it dwarfing Russian/Chinese spending combined.

Very true, but that doesn't win a war. How long would that artillery last, with virtually guaranteed South Korean air superiority, and similar technical superiority on the ground? What's the life expectancy of a T-62 in range of a K1?

You're the one telling us that fighting Iran (with a military budget that's less than 3% of the USA's) would qualify as a major war for the Americans. It appears the terminology and expected capabilities of the US, as you defined them, are therefore pretty meaningless. The idea of the US being unable to handle two Irans (which would have a combined defence budget totalling ~5.5% of the USA's) is beyond ridiculous. While it's funny that you think that this blurb actually provides any meaningful insight, what's even funnier is how blatantly you dodged my question. Again, why don't you tell us how North Korea would beat South Korea with equipment that's already been proven helpless against the type of hardware South Korea fields.

It didn't need to be in-depth, but it was still a lot deeper than what you were peddling when I posted it! That's an expectation that the US placed on itself, with 'major' and 'war' seemingly being vaguely defined. It maintains such a large presence in the region to provide assurances to allies against expanding regional Chinese influence - containment if you will. As for North Korea, it simply doesn't have the hardware or the economy to wage a significant conventional war. You're an armchair general, so why don't you tell us how North Korea would beat South Korea with obsolete equipment that's already been proven helpless against the type of hardware South Korea fields.

I don't need to do a research paper for some basic analysis, and what I provided still went miles further than your 'facts' regarding reductions in military spending. but still in much better shape than the rest of the world's armed forces, with funding levels dwarfing its closest rivals! http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/30/russia-has-to-slash-military-spending-to-balance-the-budget/ No, it's because of:

Unfortunately it seems to be the government on which people focus the most attention. It's far more glamorous I guess.

That whole quote was an analysis Derek. Holy crap. Neither war would be sustained. The US would roll over Iran much like they did in Iraq. North Korea, with it's woefully antiquated equipment and inadequate economy, would be even less equipped to fight a sustained war. They'd lose a conventional war against South Korea, let alone the United States.

I didn't say that. I'm just cynical about politics in general. You can call it what you want, but I'd heavily debate the effectiveness of multi-party committees who are working towards opposite ends and invariably playing political games. At least the decision-making isn't done that way, since decision-making by committee usually ends up with good ideas getting strangled into a mutated amalgam of mediocre/bad ideas.

because the electoral system is split into ridings, not provinces.

So you say, but the last thing I want is more government by committee. I'll pass on PR.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek, copying your own comment on how you'd "heard enough" of your opponents' fear-mongering. Clearly it went over your head. Even the committee work is usually just smoke-and-mirrors, with the minority party generally getting little/no say in the final outcome. I'm not the one crying for change. The justifications need to go beyond your vague feelings, opinions, and beliefs, otherwise you're just advocating change for the sake of change. Fluffy grass-is-greener notions don't really cut it.

I didn't. You and BC were discussing reductions in US defense spending and I commented on that with some comparisons and analysis. Unlike you, I didn't just say, "The US spends $640B/year on defense." and pretend that it was an argument-winning factoid. Add them ALL up and they don't even spend half of what the US does, nor do they have meaningful blue-water or force-projection capabilities. As mentioned, it already outspends any potential/realistic combination of enemies by over 2:1. As for security commitments and policing, NATO allies outspend Russia by an erormous margin and the USA's Pacific allies have sharp teeth as well. maybe if you were planning on invading China and Russia simultaneously, otherwise no.

I think we've had enough of your nonsense about our non-democratic democratic system and how 'divisive' it is. The relationship between inclusiveness and divisiveness isn't as real as you think it is. Except not. Hardly any bills get defeated because it usually leads to loss of supply and/or non-confidence. What we usually see, therefore, is a tense game of chicken where confidence in the government has a lot more to do with approval ratings and general attitude rather than the issues or bills themselves. In your opinion, in your view, what you believe and what you think, however, don't appear to be based on much.

Obviously, but what does that actually tell us considering the same could be said about virtually any other wealthy nation? Nothing. A good point, except for the lack of capable strategic rivals or practical conventional threat over the last 20+ years. This argument would be better if the US wasn't outspending all of its combined rivals/enemies by such a large margin. Overkill would be the term I'd use, but even that's probably an understatement. It's not there in the first place.

You conveniently cut off the rest of that sentence. Large corporations can't fudge their books like small businesses can. It's way easier to do business off the books for a self-employed tradesman or small proprietor. A Fortune 500 comapny can't deal in cash the same way. Thanks, for the explanation, but I work in finance. No, that's just the definition you've decided to give the term. Austerity measures are nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to bring government budgets back in line and provide them with some discipline and credibility. The Greeks were running large and irresponsible structural deficits even during good times, so as I've said before a reckoning was inevitable.

For Italy and Greece, with their famously unstable and ineffective governments, PR has fairly obviously contributed to their problems. That's just a dumb red herring. Having clearly been unable to argue your point rationally and based on facts, you've sunk to ridiculous hyperbole and general silliness. When did WW2 start, and when did the USA join? Once you've looked that up, try and explain the 2+ year gap.

More on entitlements than....? Once again, you've provided us with a fact without any intelligent analysis, comparison or context. I'm not sure if this sort of analysis is beyond you, or if you deliberately leave it out so your facts appear to support your point more than they actually do. US social spending lags behind virtually all of its developed peers, while its poverty rate and income gaps are head and shoulders above them.

Who said anything about tax-cutting? We're talking about tax-evasion, as in the tendency of the average Greek for dishonesty in reporting their income. The mental gymnastics you had to go through to even get to that question are astonishing. Because the tax environment isn't advantageous at all. Fortune 500 companies can't fudge their books and deal in cash like a ma & pa garage can in Greece. Additionally, Greece's productivity lags fairly far behind in terms of output/worker, so there's little reason for companies to invest there in the midst of their other economic woes.

Nice! Now they've fallen more in line with notable progressives like Pakistan, Russia, Mauritania and Yemen! or context, right Derek? Facts indicate that US defense spending amounts to over 36% of the world's total, while their economy only represents around 22%. The facts also show us that the Pentagon's budget is larger than the next 9 largest military budgets worldwide, making the British Empire's old two-power-standard look pretty lame!

First, that makes no sense whatsoever. Second, even if it did you'd be wrong. It's a cultural problem going back to the Ottomans, where tax evasion was a form of passive resistance to their rule but didn't end when their occupation did. Finally, tax evasion is a common problem wherever the olive tree grows, where self-employment is significantly more common and gives the average Mediterranean way more opportunity to fudge their books. I did provide one. Portugal, Italy and Spain all share exceptionally large tax evasion problems, ranging from 19-25% of their GDPs. Their aversion to paying taxes, however, do not correspond to a similar aversion to public spending. This, among a good many other structural/chronic problems in their economy (like hefty trade imbalances, lagging productivity gaps, ridiculous labour laws, high household debt etc) made a reality check inevitable. It's no coincidence that these countries were hit so hard by the global financial crisis. Again, you're not making sense. Explain. Large portions of the Greek population emptied their bank accounts and hid their money wherever they could to avoid government levies resulting from austerity measures. They'll avoid paying taxes any way they can.

You can't put it any clearer because you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place. Greece's corruption problems were/are systemic and permeate their entire population. Their black market economy accounts for about 25% of their GDP, meaning people just don't like paying taxes there. He doesn't do that at all. That's just a lame red-herring.