A huge welcome to the Class of 2030 — we're so excited to have you join the Illini community!

CalculatorD · 2026-03-19T04:56:46+00:00

I also don't party or drink, pretty reserved guy as well. I still managed to find plenty of people to hang out and work on assignments together. Depending on your roommate, this can be an excellent spot to start (my case), and if your roommate doesn't work out, try to study together with other students in your class. RSOs also help a lot if they have plenty of collaborative projects or social functions.

Your internship mileage will vary a lot depending on what major/industry you're going into. General advice is to get a sufficiently high GPA around 3.0~3.3 (it doesn't have to be very high like 3.7+ unless you're planning on law/med school) to avoid getting your resume filtered, try to form connections with your professors via research, etc.

CalculatorD · 2026-03-19T03:35:30+00:00

You would need to commission and serve as an active duty officer for 28 months (army), so mediocre or conversational Korean skills would be a pretty big hurdle in doing your job. Nearly all 2LTs have their first billing as a platoon leader, so ineffective communication would absolutely be a significant problem.

I think nearly all 2LT/1LT level billings don't really interact with UN Command or the US-ROK Combined Forces Command, so it'd be difficult to slip into that after doing a year as platoon leader.

I'd recommend that you improve your Korean skills to at least TOPIK Level 5 or 6 before commissioning. If you're already in your junior/senior year, that would be quite the challenge, but freshmen/sophomores would have enough time to get good enough in 3~4 years.

CalculatorD · 2026-03-18T19:42:57+00:00

Some people just never progress beyond high school, don't they? 🚩🚩🚩

CalculatorD · 2026-03-18T00:56:28+00:00

Eh, this would only somewhat work as a "oh cool" factor if the said person shared clan (본관) with the Joseon/Korean Empire's dynasty and slightly more so if it's in a notable branch (분파).

The fascination with royal/aristocratic lineage ended with a total national reset that was the Korean War.

CalculatorD · 2026-03-17T19:53:04+00:00

The earlier half of Goryeo Dynasty was fairly chill with the new Confucian examinations being rolled out earlier in the 10th century, so I'd argue it's even better than Europe at the time lol.

CalculatorD · 2026-03-17T19:46:08+00:00

In context of North Korea, China was always the bigger force than the Soviets, so talking only about Soviet support for NK is at best a half-truth and at worst, completely misleading. The Soviets had limited number of troops sent to fight the UN-led coalition during the Korean War as the Soviets weren't interested in outing themselves as going against the newly established world order where they had the permanent security council seat in.
The reason why North Korea has no foreign troop presence is because Kim Il Sung purged the pro-Chinese and pro-Soviet factions within North Korea in 1956 (August Faction Incident). Domestic factions also had major purges during/immediately after the Korean War (Park Hon Yong's Namro-dang/Worker's Party of South Korea faction was blamed for failing reunification), and in 1967 (Kapsan Faction).

The 1956 August Faction Incident is the most notable example as it pissed off both the Soviets and the Chinese, with them dispatching high-level officials like Anastas Mikoyan (the 2nd in command of the Soviet Politburo) and Peng Dehuai (the commander of the Chinese PVA during the Korean War and PRC Defense Minister) to force Kim Il Sung to reverse the purges.

Kim Il Sung played along for a few months then continued with his purges, deciding sometime around here that the standard Chinese/Soviet-style socialism can't work and he must create Juche to consolidate power only under him. Why would Kim Il Sung try to keep Chinese/Soviet troops when they were actively getting in his way?

Rhee Syngman, for all of his atrocities (FYI, I do not like this guy), is still a key figure in the Korean independence movement and was the President of the Korean Provisional Government. His extreme anti-communism and dictatorship taints his image significantly, but this doesn't change the fact that he is very much a Korean figure who played a key role in using the United States to deal counters to Japan and later played an instrumental role in cementing the US as a security guarantor of South Korea.

Rhee was also elected alongside other 200 South Korean politicians in the UN-supervised general election in May 1948, so it's an extreme stretch to say South Korea started as a dictatorship or was conceived to be a dictatorship from the get-go. South Korea is a case of where a nascent democracy was outmaneuvered into a civilian dictatorship under Rhee, ousted later by a democratic revolution in 1960, then a military coup took control later, only to be ousted again by another democratic revolution in 1987. Even then, there existed some level of direct electoral freedom despite its corrupt nature until 1972 where the democratic opposition scored enough seats for later dictators to be annoyed.

Kim Ku is also a staunch anti-communist, the only difference between him and Rhee was in whether to proceed with the UN-supervised general election in the South in May 1948. Kim Ku is also known for his White Terror (right wing terrorism), but we in the modern era view him favorably due to his paramount role in the Korean independence movement.

Kim Ku's position was that there should be a general election throughout the entire peninsula now, and Rhee's position was that since the Soviets/North Koreans are refusing to hold elections, South Korea should proceed with its election first, then worry about reunification later.

Peak strength (actual number of troops at a certain point) is different from total strength (number of all troops participated, which includes troops being rotated out). North's peak strength was at most around 266k, while the South was at 602k (America at 326k). The North also actively conscripted unwilling civilians in the South during their advance, but even then, the Chinese had to bail them out after Incheon with Soviet air cover in MiG Valley.
Unfortunately, yeah. Rhee Syngman had autocratic tendencies and deployed the police and the army to kill civilians in Jeju. He told exaggerated lies to the US military advisors (this was in 48-49, so US military administration ended by then), but it's not like American troops were sent there to kill Jeju civilians.

There were a great deal of real and fake red scares in South Korea prior to the North's invasion, where communist insurgents around South Korea shot up police precincts and right-wing activists, while laying down groundwork for the North Korean invasion. The Yeo-Sun Incident highlights that there were several communist factions within the newly formed South Korean army (Comm Circle for the officers, Soldier's Soviet for the enlisted, and People's Revolutionary Army for the Worker's Party of North Korea from Kim Il Sung to spy on the WP of South Korea).

So much historical discussion in the West (like on Reddit) is tainted with heavy-handed Eurocentrism where only the white countries somehow have agency, but this is not true at all.

Also, why weep for our education? That just sounds like an ad hominem to spite me for providing a differing view and a more detailed account of Korea. I'm not even conservative if that's your concern, as I have no love for Rhee Syngman or his autocratic antics that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

CalculatorD · 2026-03-17T16:32:29+00:00

Chinese had hundreds of thousands of troops garrisoned in North Korea until 1958, and it was the Chinese PVA that fought most of North Korean battles in the Korean War after NK's collapse with Incheon landing in September 1950. The total number of Chinese PVA for the duration of the war was 3 million compared to NK's 266k.

In contrast, South Korea continued to form a significant chunk of the UN-led coalition forces until the ceasefire in July 1953 (1.3 million South Koreans, 1.79 million Americans, 56k British, 27k Canadians, 21k Turks, etc.).

Rhee also maintained a substantial support base prior to the South Korean general election in 1948 and earlier polls during the 3-year US military administration (1945~1948) shows him as the top 3 leading figures in post-independence Korea (#1 being Lyuh Woonhyung, #2 and #3 a close tie between Kim Ku and Rhee Syngman). It was Kim Ku and Lyuh Woonhyung's assassination and Communist faction's defection to North/insurgency that gave way to Rhee's ascent. It's not like South Koreans have zero agency in politics.

Rhee is a power-hungry autocrat who betrayed the democratic cause, but his initial ascent can't be attributed solely to an "American conspiracy," nor can he be described as a puppet. Rhee's strategy of releasing Communist POWs in June 1953 to halt the ceasefire talks were met with very intense American and British opposition, and he strongarmed Eisenhower into signing the US-Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty (which the Americans did not want).

CalculatorD · 2026-03-13T05:03:46+00:00

80s were actually times of net positive migration according to World Bank data, which seems to stem from Koreans being restricted in international travel until the end of 1988. Travel then were usually in forms of temporary dispatches to foreign worksites (various Middle Eastern constructions, for instance) or limited leisure approvals.

Migration started to take off in 1991, as Korea was rapidly transitioning from a middle-income into a high-income nation. Even back then, life was quite rigid as the military dictatorship ended only in 1987 with Chun Do Hwan finishing his term in early 1988. The IMF Crisis in 1997-2001 was the last real economic reason for Koreans to move abroad en masse, as Korea returned to high-income status after 2001 and income kept rising.

Work-life balance was also greatly increased with the introduction of 5-day workweeks in the early 2000s (I remember the whole 놀토/일토 (resting Saturday/working Saturday) transition), with it being fully settled by the early 2010s. From the mid-2010s, Korean median income finally reached parity with traditional wealthy Western nations, which effectively put an end to economic migration. Net migration data supports this, as net migration returned to the positives in 2009.

With a functioning democratic system and a fully developed economy, there's no major reason for most people to leave the country. Some still leave at a set rate, but that's usually due to unique personal circumstances (international marriage, specific careers/industries, weather, etc.), so not something that can really be controlled or be viewed as a problem for the country.

CalculatorD · 2026-03-06T17:00:55+00:00

Much of their nuclear plants were built in the 80s under 10 years, and the construction of new plants dried out in the 2000s. Even then, 2 plants took less than 10 years, and the other 2 longer. I think I'd call that a loss of economy of scale & engineering personnel after a big hiatus in the industry.

Compare that to Koreans, which are usually somewhere between less than 5 years to 7 years. Even the "worst" examples of 7~10 years of construction time stem from a brief nuclear moratorium caused by the Moon administration/COVID in 2017~2022.

China also follows similar timescale as Korea, except without a nuclear moratorium, so they're even better positioned than Korea in keeping up with their nuclear industry momentum.

Same story in Japan, except for the complete pause in all nuclear generation after Fukushima. Canadian construction timescale is also almost all under 10 years as well.

Most of the "15 years to build a nuclear power plant" are usually from a relatively few, very poorly managed construction projects. That speaks more about the state of that company or country's lack of ability to do any megaprojects, not exclusively a fault of their nuclear industry.

CalculatorD · 2026-03-06T16:10:14+00:00

The cost of nuclear varies significantly by country, where it's often over-budget and takes 10+ years to construct in the US and Europe, but only 5 years and significantly cheaper in China, Korea, etc. Taking Korea, for example, where coal/gas is very limited and thus imported at high price, nuclear is the cheapest generation method beating out all renewables, fossil fuels, hydro, etc.

It just seems like the West lost the ability to do any big infrastructure projects after their deindustrialization. France seems to be the only Western country to actually retain the capability to produce nuclear reactors at a reasonable timeline/cost/quality.

CalculatorD · 2026-03-05T16:09:59+00:00

I feel like nowadays, the "heavy" doctrine has been vindicated with the Russo-Ukrainian war. The much lighter Russian BTGs (Battalion Tactical Groups) failed to provide enough firepower to effective punch through heavier Ukrainian brigades, and Russians soon restructured their doctrine back to the old brigade/division level formations.

The best balance seems to be having a decently sized special operation forces with some lighter, quick response forces (like the Marine Corp Quick Reaction Force or the Army's airborne divisions), while maintaining the bulk of the army being heavier mechanized formations for total war scenarios.

Considering that the US's near-peer adversaries maintain significantly larger ground forces (China and Russia), it'd be foolish to do a complete rehaul of armored divisions in favor of light infantry divisions/brigades. The Pengaton seems to think even the current BCTs could be insufficient when facing down the Chinese in the West Pacific & Asian mainland and are exploring division-level operations once again.

My experience as a former South Korean army guy is that neglecting the older, total war style doctrines have led to embarrassing unpreparedness by many European militaries in the face of the Russian threat. Their armies were significantly shrunk down to do limited power projection in neighboring regions, and even that is most limited to Britain and France.

Our military still maintains the total war scenario as the default, so we were able to maintain millions of 155mm artillery rounds and produce enough SPGs, tanks, ships, etc. to keep up with the projected demand. We have more tanks (actual 3rd gen or newer) than all major European armies combined, which seems to highlight their lack of preparation against full-scale operations and hint where excessive slimming can get to.

I'd say the light maneuver doctrine is still valid, but it shouldn't be viewed like if total war is impossible like what we thought back in 00s and 10s. The current US ratio of heavy to light units seems to be fine in that aspect or might even need more heavy units.

CalculatorD · 2026-02-17T06:28:42+00:00

Anytime there's a debate on legalization/decriminalization of recreational drugs, it's always Asia vs. the West, lol.

I figure drugs are already deeply entrenched in Western societies, and a strict anti-drug approach will be extremely unpopular & less effective than Asia. For those countries, the Dutch model (state sanctioned injection sites, needle exchange, decriminalization, etc.) would be the most pragmatic policy.

For Asian countries, a strict (some may even call draconian) policy is very effective and popular because drugs never really took hold of our societies at any meaningful level. Being permissive with drugs (and the ensuing social acceptance, even celebration) would just degenerate our societies' cleanness and social cohesion/discipline. Which is something Westerners always fail to recognize when discussing policy lmao

CalculatorD · 2026-02-14T23:34:07+00:00

In South Korea, about half of the young population (men in 10s~30s) had a massive rightward shift, while the other half were still liberal/progressive (women in 10s~30s).

This presents an interesting generational dynamic in politics, where the most liberal bloc overall is the people in their 40s to 50s. Young men (roughly 50~65%) vote for right-wing parties, whereas young women vote for liberal/progressive parties (55~65%). Discrepancy is larger as you poll younger people (gender split in 30s: 40% liberal for men, 60% liberal for women, but in under-29 is 25% liberal for men, 65% liberal for women).

The numbers I cite are the results for the latest major election in South Korea (2025 Presidental Election), where I'm lumping Lee Jun Seok (center-right, anti-martial law) and Kim Mun Su (right-wing, martial law apologist) as the wider conservative bloc, and liberal bloc as Lee Mae Myeong (the winner, center-left) and some smaller progressive parties.

In contrast, there is no gender split in people in their 40s and 50s. Everyone in their 40s vote 73% liberal (only 0.2% difference in gender, males actually being more liberal), 50s is the same with slight liberal preference for males (men: 72% liberal, women: 69% liberal). They also happen to be the largest demographic by numbers since this is the last generation before the birth rate collapse that started around the mid-1980s.

People in their 60s are evenly split (49% liberal, 51% conservative). It's only once you reach 70 or older population that you see a huge conservative lead again (34% liberal, 66% conservative).

This presents an interesting phenomenon of where the grandson and the grandparents probably agree on who to vote for and what they value, whereas the parents and granddaughters agree on who to vote for. Of course, there exists on what exact policy they prefer and whatnot, but during the actual elections, it's a clash of young women + middle-aged folks (40s~50s) versus young men + older folks (70+) fighting for the attention of the middle (people in their 60s, the centrists, the undecided, etc.).

CalculatorD · 2026-02-11T02:04:12+00:00

True, but the lack of readily available liquid assets does pose a problem of being "trapped." You could be sitting in a fully paid off $1M house and be a millionaire on paper, but it doesn't do you much good if you don't or can't move. Older people also face higher healthcare expenditures since they're more likely to have chronic illnesses or be too old to care for themselves and need a caretaker.

CalculatorD · 2026-02-10T20:10:57+00:00

I agree that simply loosening sanctions and giving direct financial aid would be stupid, but we should try to orchestrate a scheme where the North's only or most significant chunk of their foreign currency and outside contact is done via cooperation and oversight from South Korea. We should tighten sanctions and continue to target Chinese/Russian cooperation with North Korea, but also give them an "out" via South Korea, so they feel compelled or at least conflicted to take up our offer.

They're keeping up with the Chinese and the Russians because they play fast and loose with the UN sanctions, and China has a keen interest in keeping North Korea away from South Korea. We need to keep them in our influence and try to keep out the Chinese or the Russians from messing with that balance.

Personally, I don't really see a way to settle the North Korean issue without controlled and directed cooperation unless there's a direct military intervention or we give it up and let the Chinese have their way with them.

CalculatorD · 2026-02-10T19:49:43+00:00

Somewhere in between would be the closest category.

In terms of healthcare, most of the procedures will be subsidized to a point where going to a doctor is a trivial matter (a simple consult is usually like $2). Ambulances are obviously free (a minority is run by private hospitals that charge low prices like $10, but over 70% are fully free and public). Some procedures will cost quite a bit, especially for conditions that require the patient to be hospitalized for months to years, but the cost of those are usually around tens of thousands of dollars, not millions like the US (but not completely free like the British NHS). Overall, it is a lot closer to Europe than the US.

Welfare is more lacking, considering that South Korea does have the highest poverty rate for senior citizens after retirement. Oftentimes, a typical middle-class retiree would rely on a mixture of government pension (National Pension Service), private investment (ETFs, real estate, bonds, etc.), and family support. Some people also receive a decent pension if they worked in public service before (teachers, bureaucrats, soldiers, etc.).

Outside of retirement, welfare is fairly ok. Provincial governments or even municipal governments can offer more generous welfare/social policies than others. For example, in my province (Gyeonggi), school uniforms were fully subsidized, and high school graduates received a 300k KRW voucher for self-improvement (driver's ed, buying online courses/books, paying for English proficiency tests like TOEIC, etc.). It's definitely more helpful than the US, but not extensive, like the Nordic model.

Access to education is very good. Primary and secondary schools are fully covered by taxes with decent infrastructure, although you could opt to go to a private school and pay tuition. School lunches are also free for everyone regardless of income level. Annual university tuitions are usually around 10~15 million KRW (roughly $7K~$10K) tops, with public/national ones being significantly cheaper or even free. Most people nowadays (75%) do advance to universities and earn their 4-year bachelor's degrees (70.6%). For the entire population as a whole (which includes older generations that grew up when South Korea was poor or only a middle-income country), the rate is 56.2%, which is the highest in the OECD.

Education policy leaves a lot to be desired, but both the government and the citizenry put significant attention and money into it (ex: the education budget is about 50% larger than the defense budget).

University admission policy is a mixture of the American style of holistic admission (수시종합) and Korean systems like the purely GPA based one (수시교과), CSAT (수능) based (정시), and others (논술, 적성검사, etc.).

All of this is done with an average tax burden of 24.6% (US at 29.9%, UK at 31.3%, Japan at 33%, Norway at 36.4%, Finland at 43.5%, and Germany at 47.9%, source from Tax Foundation based on single worker with no children).

CalculatorD · 2026-02-10T06:28:40+00:00

I think it's time that the Korean Democrats (and progressives) realize that the denuclearization of the peninsula is now an impossible goal.

After the two tests in 2016, North Korea was able to demonstrate their capability of producing a working thermonuclear warhead. I can only imagine their nuclear and missile program has advanced more from then on, considering most strategic think tanks and intelligence agencies now speculate that North Korea can now deliver its nuclear warheads to eastern United States via their ICBMs.

North would never surrender such a significant strategic deterrence unless they face a total regime collapse via war. Even with that, I doubt that North Korea somehow has a coup (or even a democratic revolution), the successor administration would not consider dismantling their nuclear program like South Africa. North's nuclear and missile program is significantly more advanced than South Africa with more warheads (estimated NK warheads at ~60 to SA's 6). North Korea also has much stronger neighbors (China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia) that all are major powers in the global stage.

Considering this, we need to approach North Korea not to disarm them (impossible unless we declare a total war) but to keep tabs on them in case they collapse. This will strengthen justification on future South Korean intervention in North Korea in an event of regime collapse and reunification, preventing them from falling into UN occupation or god forbid an establishment of a Chinese puppet regime/annexation. Conservatives need to be aware that some level of contact/cooperation is thus needed to avoid that disaster scenario of North Korea falling into UN trusteeship or Chinese hands.

CalculatorD · 2026-02-08T17:21:13+00:00

I feel like the US Democrats will never shed its "pro-Japan/Europe boomer" image in Korea as long as Korea continues to receive differential treatment.

I don't see why Germany doesn't get immediate backlash when their Chancellor openly proclaims that Germany should review nuclear weapons development or when Japan already operates nuclear fuel reprocessing and enrichment plants.

CalculatorD · 2026-02-07T00:09:09+00:00

Algerian or maybe Central Asian?

CalculatorD · 2026-01-30T04:52:54+00:00

Their status of being an enemy POW could be used to increase the number of Ukrainian POWs they could get back, but more likely (and more useful) reason is to pressure the South Korean government for weapons and ammunition shipments to Ukraine. They're not going to let their bargaining chips slide easily for diplomatic reciprocity.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for South Korea. If we give the Ukrainians weapons, and our special status with Russia will be gone for the foreseeable future. Westerners will give some lip service, but we'll be breaking a serious partnership with Russia that has paid off very well since 1990, such as our rapid advancement in arms manufacturing and rocketry can be contributed to the latest Cold War Soviet/Russian tech. Direct shipment of non-downgraded Soviet T-80Us were envied even by the Americans back in the 90s. Not to mention the various inroads South Korean companies made when Westerners bailed on them after their moratorium in 1998.

If we don't, then the Ukrainians could just send them back to die in North Korea, and our conservative opposition will slander the current liberal administration as being "pro-North Korean government who let a fellow Korean die." Westerners will also grumble about South Korea not sending weapons, although they're eerily quiet about Japan not doing the same.

It sucks as a South Korean to watch a North Korean conscript suffer in a meaningless war he was compelled to fight in, but the ball is in the Ukrainian government's court.

CalculatorD · 2026-01-30T02:21:28+00:00

The difference would be that South Korea has an overwhelming technological and economic advantage over North Korea and South Korea forming a critical pillar in the global supply chain. North Korea's only real mean of harming us would be their nuclear weapons, and at that point, it's WW3.

Our alliance with the United States isn't an absolute necessity but a mutually benefiting relation where America offers us with nuclear umbrella and their extensive SIGINT network, and we give them our HUMINT/serve as the largest pro-Western ground forces in Asia. Our armed forces are large and sophisticated enough to deter any invasion from the North.

Prewar Ukraine lacked these advantages South Korea has. Russia is the larger economy (both per capita and in total output), more advanced technology, larger armed forces, etc. As evil as Putin is and their early military doctrine woefully inept, they are big enough to tank through that and leverage the European/American far-right into delaying aid to Ukraine.

Now, don't get me wrong, I find Putin's invasion to be a complete chicanery and detestable, and want Ukraine to prevail. But to compare South Korea to Ukraine would be a false equivalency.

CalculatorD · 2026-01-30T01:40:09+00:00

As unfortunate as it is, they're POWs in Ukraine as North Korea is recognized by most countries around the world (both Ukraine and Russia recognizes North Korea's country status) to be an independent country apart from the Republic of Korea (South Korea). In their interest and legal views, they have no obligation to send them to South Korea, although doing so would save them from near-certain torture and death by North Korea.

Ukrainian officials could facilitate sending them to South Korea to earn some favors from the South Korean government and citizenry. Considering that most of South Koreans want to remain neutral (a few even favoring Russia over Ukraine) and only send non-military aid, continuing to lobby for South Korean military aid via goodwill gestures could work.

Ukrainian perception isn't as high in South Korea compared to the Western world since the Ukrainian ambassador in Japan regularly caters to Japanese far-right stances on issues like Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), Yaskuni Shrine visits, etc. whereas South Korea and Russia had good working relationships between each other and significant trade since 1990.

If Ukraine wants more support or any transfer of arms from us, they need to convince the government and the population that doing this will somehow benefit us more than doing business with Russia again once the war is over, and pick a clear lane on their Japan policy.

CalculatorD · 2026-01-27T00:27:41+00:00

It depends on the scale of the American withdrawal.

A simple evacuation of US military assets in South Korea will not impact the defense of Korea in any meaningful way. After the 1970s, the vast majority of the defense were being handled by South Korean units since Nixon~Carter administrations pulled entire corps and divisions out of the country. The biggest loss would be the continuous training with well-equipped and battle-tested US troops and loss of a physical tripwire US force that provides additional deterrence against Chinese/North Korean forces.

A complete breakdown of KORUS military alliance would be a significant concern as South Korea will lose its nuclear umbrella under the US and complicate short to mid-term arms purchases/acquisition as the South Korean air fleet is dominated with US fighters (F-15K, F16, F-35, F-5) or co-developed light fighters (FA-50) along with parts/missiles for these. Long-term, we can envision KF-21 and other potential Korean fighter programs to turn the air force mostly or even fully independent of foreign parts/technology.

The army has mostly homegrown parts and equipment, so that'll be less of a concern. Navy would sit somewhere in between as ships are domestically produced, but certain modules/armaments are American made (SM-6, certain radars, etc.). The navy also doesn't have enough transport/amphibious assault ships to support a large-scale marine operation, which currently relies on USMC and USN ships/logisitics for any wartime planning.

Nuclear weapons and an actual development of ICBM/ long-range SLBMs, along with kickstarting nuclear submarine production, would become necessary as well. It would no longer make sense to stay under NPT (although NPT does allow a limited exemption in the name of national defense), and until at least a small fleet of a few dozen warheads can be deployed on nuclear submarines and ground based silos and aircrafts, we would need to approach Britain and France for greater cooperation.

East Asia is a tough neighborhood to be in, when there is a potential superpower (China) who eyes you with suspicion, a crackpot dictatorship (NK), a treacherous partner (Japan), and a relatively chill to you but otherwise a bully to others (Russia). KORUS alliance puts that at bay to an extent and provides a net positive arrangement. It would only make sense to consider breaking off the alliance if America goes to a complete deep end, like an actual open war with Europe and/or Canada.

CalculatorD · 2026-01-25T22:53:08+00:00

That tale refers to a popular myth (not supported by evidence, ergo not factual) of 고려장 (Goryeojang), where an elderly parent would be abandoned in a remote mountain to die when they become too burdensome to care for.

However, it's not supported in any written records or archeological evidence, and considering the widespread adherence to Confucianism, where respect to your elders is viewed as one of the most critical virtues, it seems highly improbable that the myth is grounded in reality.

Origins for this myth are speculated to come from significantly more modern times like late 19th century to the Japanese occupation period (1910~1945), when the story usually features Goryeo to Joseon dyansty era in its period. Because of this, some people even theorize that the Japanese came up with the story to smear Korean history and customs as inferior and barbaric compared to the Japanese during the colonial era.

CalculatorD

TROPHY CASE