PDA

View Full Version : Unit 707 Photo Essay: South Korean Female Military Special Forces



Pages : 1 [2] 3

kirnieh
11-22-2006, 08:50 PM
In the 1st pic....the lady on the left must be a cutie. Yeh, I have this 8th sense....it only works when i took my thinking cap off.

steevosan
11-22-2006, 08:56 PM
Im curious to hear about what kind of 'covert' ops they're involved in..
nothing deadlier than a pretty woman with a motive
:gun4:

sliq1
11-23-2006, 12:58 PM
Do you have your eyes check once every two years? Just curious!

haha, well that's another story and yes i'm near sighted (actually pretty severly) however when I asked about my dossier (when they had to 'fail' me) my myopia had nothing to do, it was straight up my peripheral vision (According to the recruiting officer)... :confused:

wuwei
11-23-2006, 01:47 PM
Ah ok miscommunication.
To explain, Im sure you know that special forces are quite different from the regular army. In the 70s./80s while training, in the regular army, food was supplied, in special forces (particularly the gongsoo boodae (airborne unit) they had to produce/fetch their food in the mountains. Training ground for them was in the old sewers often for days where they had to sleep there too.
So I do think the army (although I admit I did apply for the candian armed force but was 'declined' for the most ridiculous excuse, I apparently have a narrow peripheral vision.....I had no clue you had to have an owl's or goldfish peripheral vision to be in the army) has it a bit easier than various special forces.

That's actually not ridiculous at all. A scrawny sharpshooter will kill a big buffed nearsighted guy any day of the week. They rejected you for your own safety.

Juice
11-23-2006, 06:35 PM
South Korean SF units usually make american SF units cringe when they see their selection training.

Lol you're really coming out of the woodwork now. Let me put it bluntly. SK is wasting a lot of time and money on a military because it is completely pointless.

If they had talent 1/10th of what you guys are trumping up, send them to the olympics to prove it. Hey it's in Asia in 2008. They can fly over there with their superpowers right? Pick their own food along the way & stuff.

sliq1
11-23-2006, 07:26 PM
Lol you're really coming out of the woodwork now. Let me put it bluntly. SK is wasting a lot of time and money on a military because it is completely pointless.

If they had talent 1/10th of what you guys are trumping up, send them to the olympics to prove it. Hey it's in Asia in 2008. They can fly over there with their superpowers right? Pick their own food along the way & stuff.

not really sure what a sporting event has to do with training.

"SK is wasting a lot of time and money on a military because it is completely pointless" 'because'? (typo?) and would you care explaining why it is pointless?
(considering SK & NK are still at war (truce period))

azncowboy
11-23-2006, 07:26 PM
Juice, why are you being so disrespectful ? Everything you uttered here was ignorant.

You think it's a good idea for SK to not have a strong military ?

You think their special forces are not as impressive as advertised ? (Ask the Viet Cong who they feared the most)

That Koreans have not done well in the Olympics ? They've done fine in a number of sports.

Or you're just trying to pick an argument.

And it's funny that a guy with 5 posts should say others are "coming out of the woodwork"

kobukson
11-24-2006, 07:51 AM
wow that's cool. i can't think of other armies with an all female special forces unit

I can't either, although Israel does have substantial women volunteers in their armed forces.

For some reason, SK women are rather good at certain sports that require a high degree of mental focus and concentration. For many years, female archers have proven themselves consistently in Olympic archery events. Nowadays, one finds that Korean women dominate LPGA golf tournaments.

I suppose that this combination of mechanical precision, emotional discipline, and mental concentration would be prized by the military, especially for spec-ops warfare.

Juice
11-24-2006, 01:03 PM
would you care explaining why it is pointless?
(considering SK & NK are still at war (truce period))

I see the point now, gives you a sense of psychological safety.
All hail the mighty SK military!

Juice
11-24-2006, 01:22 PM
(Ask the Viet Cong who they feared the most)


Please, dig yourself 6 feet under and ask them for me. I will restore the earth on top of you for you.

sliq1
11-24-2006, 07:25 PM
I see the point now, gives you a sense of psychological safety.
All hail the mighty SK military!

so what exactly are you saying? (I'm confused) psychological safety..hmm so you think SK should depend on the almighty US force?

Nomad
11-24-2006, 08:20 PM
Man... that's some cool stuff (the OP)! I wish the US would take a cue from the Koreans and allow females into spec ops MOS's if they can pass the standards. I've always found it really sexist that they didn't. It actually suprises me that Korea of all places has been the nation to take that step, and allow females to do those jobs. Truly amazing!


.

the american military is hampered with rules in iraq that sometimes I ask, why they're even there. Those hajis (excuse my racial tone) are so ungrateful.


Wow. I'm actually agreeing with you. LOL I remember being in Airborne School (which is basically the most hardcore thing female soldiers can do in the US Army... US isn't as progressive as Korea in this regard, it would appear...) and our instructors telling us that when we jump with our weapons, we have to put them in these carrier things. We all wanted to know why that was, since if we ever did a combat jump, it was basically guarenteed that people would be shooting at us on the way down, and if we couldn't shoot back, it was like we were sitting ducks. Our instructor replied that it was a Geneva Convention regulation, and that the reason our 'chutes
dropped us so quickly and that we were dropped from such a low altitude was to minimize our time in the air since we really were sitting ducks for the enemy for any amount of time we were up there since the rules of engagement we adhere to did not allow us to fire on any enemy forces until we were on the ground.

As a soldier, it always bothered me that we adhered to this Geneva Convention and the rules of engagement thereof, which none of our enemies adhered to. It seemed rather useless to me at the time... I guess it still does. I don't think we should be at war in the first place, but my Army side says if we've got to be there, we should at least be able to fight to win.

Nomad
11-24-2006, 08:25 PM
You think their special forces are not as impressive as advertised ? (Ask the Viet Cong who they feared the most)



Hell, ask a lot of US military people, including myself, what they think of the ROK Army! I personally have a lot of respect for them, and I KNOW their SF units are insanely good. I can actually speak for a lot of my buddies on this subject as well since we've talked about it before, and they think the same thing I do. The ROK Army is quite respectable, and their SF is indeed impressive, and that ain't from a viet cong... That's from a US soldier! ;)

vman
11-24-2006, 08:54 PM
Wow. I'm actually agreeing with you. LOL I remember being in Airborne School (which is basically the most hardcore thing female soldiers can do in the US Army... US isn't as progressive as Korea in this regard, it would appear...) and our instructors telling us that when we jump with our weapons, we have to put them in these carrier things. We all wanted to know why that was, since if we ever did a combat jump, it was basically guarenteed that people would be shooting at us on the way down, and if we couldn't shoot back, it was like we were sitting ducks. Our instructor replied that it was a Geneva Convention regulation, and that the reason our 'chutes
dropped us so quickly and that we were dropped from such a low altitude was to minimize our time in the air since we really were sitting ducks for the enemy for any amount of time we were up there since the rules of engagement we adhere to did not allow us to fire on any enemy forces until we were on the ground.

As a soldier, it always bothered me that we adhered to this Geneva Convention and the rules of engagement thereof, which none of our enemies adhered to. It seemed rather useless to me at the time... I guess it still does. I don't think we should be at war in the first place, but my Army side says if we've got to be there, we should at least be able to fight to win.

Finally! We're agreeing with each other! All the american SF units are complaining about the rules they have to go through before shooting anybody.
1) if u see a guy holding a gun, u can't shoot him unless he presents an immediate threat to somebody
2) do not shoot unless u're being shot at ... right. by that time you're in a body bag 20 minutes later.
3) snipers have to wear body armor and travel in groups of like 4 or more. Obviously you're gonna get compromised.

So the terrorists now know this, so they just take out their guns when it's time to shoot, and then throw em back in the car when they're done. Suicide bombers and vbied's are impossible to spot, unless u got reliable intel. That's what happened with the sas guys like 2 years ago.

Seriously, as much as I love the american military firepower, the turn over rate is so huge that you're recruiting newbies every year, and u have to teach em all about basic shooting, mout, signals, comms, languages. All the SF guys are going to contractor work since they have no ROE's to obey = less headache, more fun, more money.

Back to Korean SF, they are good like everybody said.

V

Juice
11-27-2006, 06:58 AM
Back to Korean SF, they are good like everybody said.


so what exactly are you saying? (I'm confused) psychological safety..hmm so you think SK should depend on the almighty US force?

Ok they're "good", whatever that means. Objectively, they would lose to any "boyscout camp" in the region. They depend on the US force. "Should" is irrelevant, as they do depend. Tell the US to leave if they dare.