[RS]

You're correct about the structures built to be "blown", but it dosen't appear to be buildings.
Mostly it's bridges and extreamly heavy overpasses built to channel any armor advance.
The North knows where this stuff is -I'm sure they take the tour fairly often.

The "starving in the North" reports are the ones that puzzle me - with half the population and almost twice the arable land there is no reason for this.
I suspect a lot of the problem is large scale deception on the part of the rural communes. A lot of what's grown could be finding it's way around on the black market rather then waiting to have it confiscated.
I stayed at a friends parent's small farm last year. Their methods have not changed much in the last 50 years, and has to be very similar to the North, yet they have no trouble at all with providing an abundance of food.
The South is looking North specifically as an area to gain space and farmland, as a good counterbalence to their development.

I believe Kim Jong II knows his system is a failure. If Pres. Bush can keep the lid on, Kim will eventually bail for the south of France.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

You're correct about the structures built to be "blown", but it dosen't appear to be buildings. Mostly it's bridges and extreamly heavy overpasses built to channel any armor advance. The North knows where this stuff is -I'm sure they take the tour fairly often.

i am certain that your assessment is also correct. i am getting my information from Col David Hackworth, who fought in Korea for two years, 4 purple hearts, 5 silver stars, etc. (eventually finishing his career with 2 DSC's, 10 silver stars, 8 purple hearts, 8 bronze stars, and is under consideration for a Medal of Honor for Vietnam, etc). He saw Uijiimbu when it was nothing but rice paddys and villiages. According to him, the South is not good tank country, and there is a limit to how effective armor can be and where it can be used. It was almost completly un passable then. At any rate, i am dealing with a secondary source, i haven't seen it with my own eyes.

The "starving in the North" reports are the ones that puzzle me - with half the population and almost twice the arable land there is no reason for this.

This is curious to me. From the media reports i've seen, and some of the threads i've lurked here, i was under the impression that the DPRK didn't have as much arable land as the South. i have heard stories about the NK's eating grass and tree bark. It is my understanding that most of the nation's resources have been diverted to army use. You know, it may be possible that with the centralised planning of the Stalinist Wacko state they have taken arable land for other use. That's probably good supposition, if Cuba and the old Soviet Union are valid examples.

I believe Kim Jong II knows his system is a failure. If Pres. Bush can keep the lid on, Kim will eventually bail for the south of France.

What i'm hearing from media, particularly Japanese media is that they're worried about Kim. i don't see him giving up power if he's as nutty as advertised. i do see the day that one of his generals puts a couple of bullets between his eyes.

My pet theory on a war with the DPRK is that the DPRK generals, not being stupid, realising that they only have 60 days of logistics, not having sufficient forces to take the South (the rule of thumb is that an attacker needs at least a 3:1 advantage, and in this case probably more due to the superior fire power of the allied forces they would face), and inferior equipment (even if they have a lot of it), will do the math, and realise they can't win, finish off "Dear Leader", and cut a deal as fast as they can.

i still would be real careful about trying to invade the north. It has been my understanding that all Koreans are very touchy about their land, and will not give it up without a fight.

Any merit to those ideas?