N Korea Violates S Korean Waters

akyron said:

Always come from a position of strength. This submissive nonsense is just that.

Click to expand...

Almost.
The submissive response is often obfuscation -- or bait.

Goobieman said:

Almost.
The submissive response is often obfuscation -- or bait.

Click to expand...

I do not follow TAQIYYA very well. I mean what I say and I say what I mean if its serious anyway.

Goobieman said:

Because, unltimately, all disagreements are resolved through force, or the credible threat thereof.

Click to expand...

And what does size have to do with that? Kuwait had a much smaller military after it rebuilt in the 90s. It was technologically superior, had better training and better morale compared its its larger Iraqi neighbor. Did Kuwait fear Iraq after the Gulf War? No.

Size means nothing in today's world of war. Israel had a much smaller force then the combined might of the Arab nations trying to destroy it. The notion that larger = better ignores technology, morale and training. The Boers beat the crap out of the British with much smaller forces. Rebel forces in Congo are terrorizing the entire country yet their forces are heavily outnumbered by Rwandan and government units.

Right now the US will not invade North Korea, partially due to nuclear weapons yet the US force in aggregate outnumbers the North Korean. China's military knows it cannot win a war with numerically inferior American forces.

Size today by itself means little.

akyron said:

One more time.

Sun Tzu -The belligerent who holds this dominating position can constrain most of them to become his allies.


Always come from a position of strength. This submissive nonsense is just that.

Click to expand...

And what again does size itself have to do with this? And you ignored how numbers alone do not confer dominating positions. NATO forces in Bosnia were able to dominate the crap out of Serbian military forces yet were numerically inferior.

How does size support either your's or Goobieman's arguments? I see neither of you or anyone else wishes to address the examples I gave where size does not matter. Nor where a smaller force prevailed and set policy for the previously larger force.

You argued I'm wrong yet entirely ignored my Zulu example where the British, being the massively outnumbered force was able to dominate and set policy. Explain to me how size is what gives the dominating trait in the face of history.

akyron said:

I do not follow TAQIYYA very well. I mean what I say and I say what I mean if its serious anyway.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good -- but I was speaking in terms of the Art of War,

The thread title makes it sound like a case of rape. That'll make it easier for the Obama administration handle this as a criminal case.