Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

China and Korea

  1. China and/or North Korea?

    8 vote(s)
    53.3%
  2. USA?

    7 vote(s)
    46.7%
  1. Apr 13, 2004 #1
    Now, several times at least one person has brought up the idea that China and North Korea are possible threats. Personally I can think of another country which has attacked and invaded other countries far more often over the past century or so. But why would these two be considered a threat to any other nation?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 13, 2004 #2
    I love how you take what I say, and then twist it into WORLD peace. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Apr 13, 2004 #3

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The question may be badly worded, the choices limited, .... but it's almost axiomatic that the only global 'superpower' is also the ultimate cause of its own downfall, and the only certain source of 'global risk'.
     
  5. Apr 13, 2004 #4
    For the remainder of the board who aren't absolutely worthless:
    The original statement was that both China and Korea are areas of real possible conflict.

    Korea for whatever gain Kim Jung Il has, and for the possiblity of Nuclear expansion that calls the need for Allied force to halt it.

    China, for it's open and repeated threats of force if Taiwan declares independence. The security pact we have with Taiwan will pull us into that, despite our want to kiss china's ass on the "one China" policy.


    And just some recent articles.............

    North Korea......
    N Korea threatens to scrap truce.....
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2774003.stm
    Korea threatens preemptive action.....
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,889679,00.html
    Koreas new demands......
    http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/08/nkorea.nuclear.ap/



    China and Taiwan
    China threatens war with Taiwan
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/19/1069027184924.html?from=storyrhs
    And they've done it before....
    http://www.taiwandc.org/nws-9835.htm
    And they've threatened that Los Angeles will be struck if we interfere with their attack on Taiwan....
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-D_09 (original NY times article is for members only)


    Soooo, yes, I feel the original assertion that China and Korea are fully POSSIBLE areas of conflict is true.
     
  6. Apr 13, 2004 #5
    Obviously, the heavyweight always poises the greatest threat to the entire pond - we make the most ripples.
     
  7. Apr 13, 2004 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't know if "threat" is the right word for N. Korea. The word implies they haven't done anything yet. How much of a "threat" can they be to the 10% of the population that has starved to death in the past decade? I mean, they're already dead - you can't threaten them anymore.

    As with all loaded questions (that's the whole point of loading a question), this one is based on a false premise.
     
  8. Apr 13, 2004 #7
    I also wonder if you consider world peace to be achieved while Tibet is still occupied?


    And for that matter, is world peace obtained when nations aren't fighting, but some are starving their populations?
     
  9. Apr 13, 2004 #8
    1) USA has made "pre-emptive strike" a core part of their foreign policy.

    2) USA is still working on NBC weapons, and has huge stockpiles of such. Here's a recent one: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994318

    3) USA has threatened that nuking people again is a possibility. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.weapons.security/index.html

    4) USA has used NBC weapons against its own people. (Lose faith in your government, they simply aren't worthy of it.)
    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/t10092002_t1009ha.html
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TET210A.html
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65162,00.html

    5) USA has attacked more nations than China has. Generally a new war every presidential term. http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/

    6) USA has almost 400,000 soldiers in 135 countries. China doesn't. Nor does North Korea.

    7) The USA has indicated recently that Syria, Iran, North Korea, and other nations may face "pre-emptive strikes" (ie. the USA has threatened other nations), as part of their war on error. Remember the "axis is evil" thing?

    Once again: Which is the bigger threat?
     
  10. Apr 13, 2004 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The US is the biggest threat to criminal tyranical dictators. China and Korea are the biggest threats to the peaceful/prosperous nations and their own citizens.

    World peace? What's that? Never heard of it. I guess if you want to get technical, the modern western world, which the US created (with a little bit of help from our friends), is the most peaceful in the history of mankind.
     
  11. Apr 13, 2004 #10
    Are you high?

    As for the rest, please READ my previous post.
     
  12. Apr 13, 2004 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Pick one or two which you think are pertinent and explain them/it (in your own words). I have a problem with all 7, but I'd like to hear your opinion. That is, of course, the whole purpose of these forums. Discussion...
    We've discussed that several times before as well. Its called The Marshall Plan. Its the reason for the paragdim shift in the political forces in the west after WWII (away from nationalism) and the resulting peace and prosperity for the past 50 years, which is unparalleled in the history of the world.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2004
  13. Apr 13, 2004 #12

    I wonder....
     
  14. Apr 14, 2004 #13

    ShawnD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Russ hit the nail on the head.
     
  15. Apr 14, 2004 #14
    Has anyone wondered if the USA can be a deadly threat to the rest of the world through the export of its value and culture (materialism, consumerism and anything-goes-ism etc)?

    edit: spelling
     
  16. Apr 14, 2004 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    I had a math professor who would absolutely rant about this issue. He was very angry over the export of the US style of marketing; which is what I think you really mean? Conversely, "anything" does not go with most people in the US but it sure seems to if you want to sell something, or if you judge Americans by what you see on TV, doesn’t it? In fact, in the US we find a population that is representative of nearly all of the world’s cultures and beliefs. Like mine, I think your biggest grievance is really with the multinational corporations. These monsters often do not represent “the” US culture, its beliefs, or its attitudes, on the average, in any way. They serve themselves and that’s all. They have no national loyalties.

    Examples:
    For years they have been shipping our jobs to you and many other parts of the world.

    Consider that here in the US we pass strict environmental laws to protect and keep safe, and clean, the water and air that we need to live. The result is that we drive the corporations to deploy to Mexico where laws are much less demanding. This isn't quite the idea guys.

    The military industrial complex exists in effect to support a state of war. For this reason this environment of corporations often toes or exceeds the gray line between government and industry. They help to get politicians elected. They create jobs. They often pay big tax dollars to city, state, and fereral agencies. They definetely yield a tremendous influence on policy that in many cases is absolutely not representive of the will or intent of the American people.

    From the hopeless second runner up in the presidential election this year - Ralph Nader: "Corporations now occupy Washington"
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2004
  17. Apr 14, 2004 #16
    It would be unfair for me to blame every social ill on the USA of course, it takes two hands to clap, we have a mighty and rich super power and and it is almost human nature that other peoples less so want to share her aura/image of success by perhaps dressing in oversized pants and T-shirt, wearing NY caps, imitating the moves in her music videoes and perhaps taking on her lingo/attitude.

    I really don't have any quarrel with what you said, and I am sure you are right, big corporations are driven by big profits and all sorts of "professionals" are hired to think up ingenious ways to make profit happen or at least appear to happen. And people are capable of pretty nasty things propelled by greed. We are just as bad, if not worst, with our systematic corruption and graft (if Marx is right, this is a necessary phase of capitialism and it is called the crude accumulation of wealth, anyway).

    My lament, actually is more about the moral slip. When I said "anything-goes-ism" I actually had the tv sit-com "Absolutely Raven" (?) in mind. Do you see my point? I mean I am not a prig, but even I found that show "eye-opening". Contrast that to the "Cosby Show" (okay an unrealistic black middle-class show) years ago, and one finds the difference in ethics or aspiration startling. We are talking about "matronly" teenagers dressing and acting like, my most sincere apologies for lack of a better word and no offence intended whatsoever, "tramps". And I saw a couple of years ago an article by a sociologist saying that the beltless oversized clothes indicated two social ills in the USA, 1, obesity and 2. anything goes, because that is the way inmates dress and when teenagers identify with the inmates, the author smelled a degration in aspiration. I truly hope the show is not representative of the Americans, or else we are all in big trouble.
     
  18. Apr 14, 2004 #17
    Perhaps you can show me where he said this, since you are the only result I have ever found of this statement.

    Nader did however state that "what's really in the White House today is a giant corporation disguised as a human being." - not nearly so tactful or mature, if you ask me.
     
  19. Apr 14, 2004 #18

    kat

    User Avatar

    Well, no their not. Mainly because the majority of transnational companies aren't U.S. Based at all. There are more transnational company parents operating out of Denmark then anywhere else in the world (9,356), after Denmark comes Germany (8,492), Sweden (5,118) and Switzerland (5,506). In fact the U.S. has only slightly more then a third of the amt of transnational company parents as does Denmark.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2004
  20. Apr 14, 2004 #19

    Are your numbers representative of the relative size of the corporations, or are they misleading(intentionally or not)? In other words, are the total dollar amounts done by the Danish companies greater than those of America?
     
  21. Apr 14, 2004 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    He said it on Meet the Press about four weeks ago. The other statement was that "Bush is a corporation masquerading as a human being".
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: China and Korea
  1. North Korea successor (Replies: 3)

  2. South Korea's Economy? (Replies: 1)

Loading...