TechSpot

VOIP not being allowed on military bases in S. Korea

By Tedster
Jul 7, 2006
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wonderful update: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=37448&archive=true

    at least it's been reconsidered.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    original article: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/07/southkorea_blocksvoip_usbases/

    American VOIP companies are being banned on American military bases in S. Korea. I'm not surprised after reading about this. Having been stationed in Korea 4 times, it doesn't surprise me. Korea can be a nice country with wonderful people. It has very many beautiful and interesting things, but one trait I did not like was their tendancy (at times) to be very greedy and money-grubbing.

    I hope never to get stationed there again, especially after reading this. One of the few things that keep GIs sane when far from home and separated from their loved ones is being able to phone them (especially cheaply). I've seen a lot of young troops go into debt over phone bills because it is their first tour overseas and they have never been separated from their families.

    As a former platoon sergeant I take pride in trying to take care of younger, inexperienced troops. I know what it's like when you can't talk to mamma or the missus, or your kids. It sucks, royally. Pay phones and phone cards are often complicated, expensive, or inconvienient to use overseas in a foreign country. VOIP was one technology that helped solve all these problems.

    One of the benefits of VOIP is being able to make cheap and unlimited phone calls. Military bases are little bastions of America overseas- there should be some allowances for military. Most tours of military duty in Korea are one year or longer in length. It is a very hard tour. There is a lot of cultural shock for American troops, and a lot of lonliness as these tours are tough, hard, and unaccompanied (without family members).

    Koreans can do whatever they want off the bases. I understand it is their country, but if they can't make a small concession like that for people who are willing to defend their country against tyranny, then maybe we no longer need to be there. After all - they have had 50 years to take control of their own defense entirely and have decided that they still need our help. Korea is now the 12th largest economy in the world. (A large part of it is due to the sacrifices American and other international /UN troops gave and CONTINUE to give to them). Many gave the ultimate sacrifice- their lives.

    Apparently greed and ungratefulness has gotten the better of them. Perhaps it is time to leave.

    (Sorry I had to vent....but this really perturbed me as I have been in that country many times and suffered a lot there.) I am in no way slamming Korean people. Some of the best people I ever met were Korean. I still communicate with many of my Korean friends that I met there. I am merely slamming greediness that I found very common over there. In no way do I wish to offend anyone. So please do not misunderstand me. I am merely discussing their very selfish decision to ban VOIP services to American troops because of money.
  2. CrossFire851

    CrossFire851 Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,058

    Do you got anything I can read or tell what you mean?the reason you and are troops are over there? (please don't be offended if I said anything rude)


    PS: The link you gave seems to be invaild.


    That's fuged up if you were to ask me.
  3. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Topic Starter Posts: 10,074   +13

  4. KingCody

    KingCody TechSpot Guru Posts: 1,568   +7

    they are over there because that psychopath to the north is a constant threat to them.
  5. CrossFire851

    CrossFire851 Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,058

    And what were to happen if we said fuged them and let them do there own thing?
  6. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,490   +292

    That CrossFire is the problem

    If the US leaves, South Korea no longer exists as we know it. SK has no military at all outside of the US, NK would rape them in seconds.

    Everyone that wants nothing to happen at all, then I say to you, enjoy the world that is comming at you.
  7. KingCody

    KingCody TechSpot Guru Posts: 1,568   +7

    exactly, they can't do their own thing because NK will not let them. even if we wanted to, we simply cannot say fudge you to SK.

    if we left and NK took them over, NK would have a more powerful dictatorship - iron-fisted military society which could pose a serious threat to the US and it's allies.

    NK is already saying "fudge you" to the world by shooting his missiles off. the last thing we need is to give that psycho more power.

    while I do belive that the US cares about the wellbeing of the SK people, it is niave to think that we are not there for mostly our benefit. if we weren't, than we would have required SK to form it's own military (with our help of course) capable of defending itself from NK, and we would have left there long ago.
  8. paranoid guy

    paranoid guy Newcomer, in training Posts: 459

    Why doesn't someone just shoot "that psychopath"?
  9. dmill89

    dmill89 TechSpot Guru Posts: 737

    Because Bush is afraid that it would be bad for his approval rateing and the rateing of the republican part. Sence no other country is willing attack North Korea without US support (at least at the moment) and the US wants to go about this diplamaticaly(for now) which I believe useless and will do nouthing but give the north koreans more time to develop wepions. We realy should invade nothe korea and take care of this rouge dictator and his unstable and corrupt goverment once and for all.
  10. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Topic Starter Posts: 10,074   +13

    If north Korea attacked, it would be a very dirty and nasty war. 1 out of every three missiles in NK is tipped with either Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical agents. They have the 4th largest Army in the world with about 1.4 million stationed on the DMZ. The USA would take an enormous amount of casualties at first, but ultimately we would win based on our doctrine and retaliation.

    The only thing that prevents them from attacking is:

    1. They know US policy is to retaliate with nuclear for any WMD attacks on our troops or allies.

    2. They have chronic food and fuel shortages. NK soldiers are rationed 500g of rice a day. A typical NK civilian less than half of that. As a result, NK could never fight a protracted war. Their entire policy is to fight a blitzkrieg soviet-era style war and hope it lasts less than 30 days. They could not survive a war longer than 9 months.

    3. S. has a large Army, but far less technologically advanced than the US. Most of their economy is in butter, not guns and they rely heavily on US and UN protection. (Yes there are other nations stationed in S. Korea as well.)

    4. The Korean war NEVER ended. In 1953 there was a cease-fire, however fire-fights happen all the time on the DMZ. It's so common, you hardly ever hear about it in the papers except when defectors are involved. Rarely, if ever, are S. Korean or US soldiers killed or injured. Almost always, NK soldiers are killed. The DMZ is the most heavily fortified military barrier in the world with millions of mines and booby-traps. (I've been there, I know.)

    5. It is both SK and NK policy to try to unify. There is a weird relationship between the two. They even cooperate in some things in the spirit of reunification- obviously each differs in their concept of reunification and forms of government. NK even allows S. Koreans to play GOLF in NK golf courses located on the opposite side of the DMZ in exchange for cold cash. (Which they also have a severe shortage of. NK has no modern banking system. Most goods are bought in barter.)

    6. NK has double-crossed and alienated their biggest ally, China, numerous times. It is China's interest to keep NK alive only as a "buffer" state.
  11. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Topic Starter Posts: 10,074   +13

    No USA politician in their right mind would attack N. Korea first. We would take on tremendous amounts of casualties - that would be political suicide.
     
  12. dmill89

    dmill89 TechSpot Guru Posts: 737

    I konow it is unlikely and would be political suicide but I would realy like to see this 50 year old conflict ended and preferably before N. Korea gets ICBMs capible of reaching the continental US. I would like to see korea unified but under the goverment of S. Korea not the dictatorship of N. Korea.
  13. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Topic Starter Posts: 10,074   +13

    They're really are only are a few alternatives:

    1. International pressure - unlikely unless NK does something really stupid. Even so, too much pressure might initiate a war. After all, we're dealing with a megalomaniac.

    2. Outright war and first strike - again politically unfeasable

    3. containment (we've been doing it for 60 years now.)

    4. containment with an escalation of gradual pressure that could lead to a soviet style collapse. (risky- as NK is run by an unstable government.)
  14. CrossFire851

    CrossFire851 Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,058


    Are they the ones that tested the long range missle that didn't work? (NK) Oh, and thinks everyone for clearing that up.
  15. KingCody

    KingCody TechSpot Guru Posts: 1,568   +7

    yes they are.. lol :haha:

    but the fact that it didn't work isn't the point. they fired it to thumb their noses at the US and the UN :mad:
  16. CrossFire851

    CrossFire851 Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,058

    Not a good idea on there part :rolleyes: (if it were successful).
  17. KingCody

    KingCody TechSpot Guru Posts: 1,568   +7

    not a good idea at all.

    but then again has KIM Jong Il ever had any good ideas... ever??? ;)
  18. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Topic Starter Posts: 10,074   +13

    don't think that their missiles don't work. Often they don't put a lot of fuel because they don't have enough to spare for testing purposes.
  19. KingCody

    KingCody TechSpot Guru Posts: 1,568   +7

    so if it were provided with enough fuel could it reach the US?

    I always assumed that we have the ability to destroy it long before it gets here... I hope I am right. am i? :confused:
  20. CrossFire851

    CrossFire851 Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,058

    I think we have subs that could hit halfway before getting here.
  21. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Topic Starter Posts: 10,074   +13

    heck - we already provided a reactor!
  22. KingCody

    KingCody TechSpot Guru Posts: 1,568   +7

    um :confused:... so could we destroy it first? or is it something to really worry about? (especially for those who live or have loved ones on the west coast)

    I never really put much thought into it because I assumed that with our military technology, that a missile fired from NK would not be a serious threat to us. but now you've got me worrying :rolleyes:
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.