http://www.chosun.co.kr/nation.....90037.html

When Korean nationalists and military enthuiasists got word of this, there were calls for Australia to “imitate” Korea and adopt a design similar to the KDX-3 or better yet select the KDX-3 as Australia’s next Air Warfare Destroyer. (This despite the fact that the KDX-3 was not on the list although the Evolved Design Option proposed to Australia by Gibbs & Cox resembled the KDX-3)

There were also hopes of Korean companies being named as subcontractors for the project, plus expectations of loyalty fees from technology transfers to Australia.

Of course Australia exercised “common sense” and instead of “imitating” Korea, went for a cost effective design in the form of the Spanish F100 class AEGIS destroyers.

At least the Aussie won’t be bragging that its AEGIS destroyers are bigger and better, unlike the Koreans who couldn’t help pointing out that their AEGIS is bigger and better than the Japanese AEGIS destroyers.

Not that I believe that Korea should not deploy an air warfare destroyer with AEGIS or AEGIS like capabilities.

Yes, back in the 90’s when the Daring-class was still being planned out. With the launch of the HMS Daring last year, “common sense” would realize which direction the Royal Navy decided to go with. SAMPSON is a fine system, with its own unique pro and con versus AEGIS.

Zhang Fei, good stuffs! In addition, the Soviet Union provided the bulk of air support for N. Korea and the PRC. While the UN were outnumbered, air superiority and superior firepower were the force multipliers for the UN. Without Russian’s MiG off setting those multipliers, the term, “lambs to the slaughter” come to mind.

Like Zhang Fei said, Manchuria. UN bombers were under orders not to encroached into Manchuria during war (except for a few rare occasions), however, if China decided to do what you said supposedly it could easily done; supply depots in Manchuria would be subjected to destruction and logistically, if the PRC couldn’t advance further South than Seoul while Manchuria was safe. They’ll be sitting duck when Manchuria and the supplies are gone.

You guys really need to learn to use common sense to see the big picture.

This is kinda silly. If China had annexed North Korea, would Kim Il-Sung have stood by? Hordes of North Koreans would have flooded south, and the US would have joined with the Soviet Union to evict China. China was in a terrible position at the end of the Korean War. That is why it accepted the terms of the ceasefire, despite Mao’s central war aim to unify the peninsula under communist rule - it had lost just under a million dead. It was in no position to fight either the US or the Soviet Union in a reinvigorated war.

China was unable to annex North Korea for the same reason that it was unable to annex Mongolia - Soviet sponsorship for both countries. At minimum, massive Soviet aid to China would have been halted, not to mention the fact that Soviet divisions stood ready to collect on Chinese war debt. Soviet armies wouldn’t have had to invade North Korea to evict the Chinese, they would simply have driven down Manchuria and cut the Chinese forces off, and then slaughtered the starving and ammo-deprived Chinese with massed firepower.

This stuff about Chinese forces having more manpower in North Korea is irrelevant. The Soviets crushed the Japanese in Manchuria less than a decade before the Korean War, and the Japanese always beat the crap out of the Chinese Communists on the rare occasions they met up (the Chinese Communist strategy was to let the Chinese Nationalists destroy themselves fighting the Japanese, which they did). By the way, the same Soviet forces that crushed the Japanese in Manchuria had no problem moving to Europe to stomp Hitler’s guts out. Which is another way of saying that the Soviets would have had no problem moving their European divisions back to Asia to deal with China.

Even today, despite all the friendly rhetoric, the Soviets have their best and most well-equipped divisions near the Chinese border. Ditto with China.

YoungRocco2 is a f*****g idiot.

I hope I won’t be banned for saying it.

mins0306…화이팅!!!

Yeah, he’s calling me an Uncle Tom.

The guy’s filled with nationalistic BS, so I guess it was expected.

#51.

OK, YoungRocco2. You have your views and I have mine. I could counter your comments because they are full of holes and you are avoiding my questions BTW but then instead of getting straight talk from you I will get more BS my way and accusations of me sucking up to the white man. So I’m going to stop right here and ignore you.

Serves me right for trying to have a reasonable debate with a nationalistic Korean netizen.

I’m not wrong at all. China had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in North Korea after the Korean War. Russia had nowhere near as many. If Russia were to fight China over North Korea, it would have fought at a huge disadvantage.

Secondly, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, what would have stopped an economically vibrant China from annexing an economically moribund North Korea?

You guys really need to learn to use common sense to see the big picture.

Mins, I know what you’re trying to achieve. You’re trying to get these guys to believe that you’re a “reasonable” Korean. You want them to believe that not all Koreans hate Japan. You have good intentions, but don’t let your quest for their acceptance cloud your judgment.

I think he’s calling you an Uncle Tom, Min.

I make everyone laugh? Good! You all make me laugh too. I’m laughing at you as I type this.

1. Mins, if you’re going to claim that Korea is copying Japan, you have to have stronger proof. Japan has Aegis ships. Korea gets an Aegis ship. Does Korea’s acquisition of an Aegis ship conclusively prove that Korea is copying Japan? Certainly not. The U.S. has Aegis ships. Japan has Aegis ships. Norway has Aegis ships. Spain has Aegis ships. Australia is making plans to get Aegis ships. By your slipshod logic then, Australia must be copying Korea.

You have a few examples of other similarities in force structure, Mins. What you fail to see is that because Japan’s navy is so large, it is inevitable that there will be some overlap in force structure. Doesn’t the U.S. have similar submarines? Who is to say that Korea isn’t trying to replicate U.S. naval capability with an eye toward eventual U.S. disengagement from the region? My point is that you need more proof before offering a claim. Otherwise, you sound like a dunce.

3. You need to read more, Mins. A simple Google search will show that the Royal Navy has plans to acquire an Aegis system.

4. My point does not depend on every navy having an Aegis system, Mins. Stop these little verbal sleights of hand. You’re wasting both my time and your own. My contention is that Korea should have an Aegis system because of the Aegis platforms formidable defense capabilities. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

5. You’re tripping over your own tongue, Mins. If the region’s volatility does not warrant AEGIS, kindly explain why Japan has eight Aegis ships. Also, didn’t you claim ealier that China was a threat to Korea? The United States and Japan both plan on using Aegis to counter China, so according to your theory, Korea should do the same, hence a reason to get Aegis.

6 and 7. Eh, whatever. And you sound like those late chosun yangban who claimed that “partnering” with Japan was a good idea. After all, it had been over 300 years since the Imjin War. What’s the worse that could have happened?

Mins, I know what you’re trying to achieve. You’re trying to get these guys to believe that you’re a “reasonable” Korean. You want them to believe that not all Koreans hate Japan. You have good intentions, but don’t let your quest for their acceptance cloud your judgment. If your neighbor twice breaks into your home are you going to keep an eye on that neighbor or not?