Please check out the pages on golf

Take your time to check some relevant pages on jugar apostar

You may find it interesting to take a look at some information on lily of the valley

You may find it interesting to check out the sites about home loans mortgage rates

Please check some relevant pages dedicated to texas holdem card Texas Holdem Online free online texas holdem poker

“Sensitive! I like to say that ?€œI think for living,?€? because I work as a policy wonk for a think tank.”

I’m not sensitive, I don’t sell insurance. Just sounded arrogant.

Sorry this bit ended up there by mistake. Maybe electronic Freudian slip or something.

No it doesn?€™t. Unless you subscribe to the meaning of ?€œis?€? varies school of thought. Conscription, by definition, preclude voluntary anything.

Setting aside semantics for a moment, the Korean government is a democracy (hey don’t laugh), and I would argue that the conscription law is one of the few things that a big majority of Koreans constituents agree on and strongly support. Yeah, you can go the distance that it still is not an unanimous consent or that the kids going into military weren’t the ones who voted for it, but you get the gist - hence “in a way.”

As for the semantics, let me switch “conscription,” which sounds too much like the king forcing the folks into his military service, to the mouthful “mandatory universal military service,” then. That still may not meet the strict standard of being “voluntary,” but there is a difference as just noted.

Despite the small number that sneak out, the mandatory service provides not only the requisite manpower, but fosters a sense of fairness with strong support from the public, and this is an important benefit of its own.

As for such regime not being up to the task, Israelis amply demonstrate that is not necessarily so. Obviously Koreans are not Israelis, but that doesn’t change the fact that a competent, highly capable military force can be forged with mandatory service.

democracy by a resaonable standard for definition for the word.

This is a different tune than your earlier remarks.

“How are you going to pay for this professional army?”

You weren’t paying attention, were you? To repeat:

“Will this require a substantial increase in defense budget? Not if it reduces procuring ?€œgold-plated?€? weapons and equipment and concentrates instead on better doctrine, training and superior personnel quality. It would also help to rationalize defense procurement and do more off-the-shelf purchasing and less glorious-but-expensive indigenous manufacturing.

Also, ROK does not need a 600,000 or even a 400,000 in terms of personnel. The key is to generate combat power.”

To be more specific, I envision a highly trained professional standing force of 300,000 to 350,000 (it could be perhaps a bit smaller still), backed up by a first tier reserve force of 100,000 to 150,000. Initially, the reserve personnel would have to be based on the existing system, slowly to be phased out and replaced with volunteer reserves based on American reserve/NG system.

The key to reducing personnel size while maintaining or increasing combat power is to increase readiness, training, doctrine and leadership. This will mean a substantial increase in NCOs as well.

The defense procurement system would have to be completely rationalized. No more indigenous production unless it makes economic sense. Those that do not would be purchased overseas based on competitive bidding. Equipment can be quite inexpensive to buy if no demands are made for offsets and technology transfer.