. . . anything goes on in North Korea that does not involve development of nuclear-weapons technology, there is nothing the U.S. can do that is a better choice than “stand idly by.”
Look, someday the NK regime is going to collapse, and then the whole mess becomes SK’s problem, and I do not think SK is eager for that day.
Why is it obvious North Korea would collapse before South Korea? The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. If there’s some sort of worldwide economic crash or resource shock it’s not like NK will notice.
What, pray tell, do you think drone technology has to do with anything?
You think slow-moving, non-stealthy Predator-type drones are just going to be able to buzz around the North Korean skies, looking for 13,000 artillery pieces which are hidden in caves and mountains, and not get shot down?
Your criticism that this study is out of date glosses over two simple points: one, that the conclusions of huge losses of life in short periods of time after a North Korean attack are accepted by everyone who has studied the issue for more than 20 mintues; and two, that you think that drones, which are completely incapable of self-defense against any anti-aircraft weapon, would have any impact on the situation indicates strongly that you don’t know very much about this issue.
Here are two more cites for huge casualties:
See page 14.
Towards the bottom see the silliness of pre-emptive war on North Korea
Do you have any cites that you would like to share? Or are you just offering up your own opinions, which don’t quite seem to line up with known facts?
“Let” China prop up North Korea? What are we supposed to do, threaten war with China unless they do what we want?
The bizarre thing here is that you seem to be criticizing the perception that the US is the world’s policeman, and yet also urging the US to go to war with North Korea. This doesn’t make sense.
Because NK is the one with the malnourished population.
To be fair, the government of South Korea has already collapsed once. I think the government of South Korea would never survive a crisis as half as bad as the status quo in North Korea. This doesn’t come up because the country of South Korea is in so much better shape in every conceivable way. But still, militant dictatorships based on total control and indoctrination of dictator worship can survive worse conditions than democratically elected leaders.
Sure, but democracies usually don’t collapse into civil war when there’s a crisis. When a totalitarian regime collapses, it’s inevitably a lot harder, since the powers that be and the usurpers alike have much more to lose (and much more to gain). Add onto that, conditions in North Korea are almost shockingly worse than in the South — there’s more to cause a crisis. There’s some speculation —and I think it’s fair —that the Kim government would have collapsed in the mid-to-late 1990’s without the inflow of foreign food aid.
That’s one of the benefits of having a democratic government. The government of South Korea would never be allowed to reach a situation half as bad as the status quo in North Korea. It takes a totalitarian dictatorship for a government to do that much damage to its own country.
The family is “Kim”.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The bizarre thing here is that you seem to be criticizing the perception that the US is the world’s policeman, and yet also urging the US to go to war with North Korea. This doesn’t make sense.
[/QUOTE]
My thought exactly…but then, consider the source. Incomprehensible is pretty much the theme of the OP.
[QUOTE=Sablicious]
Hey. It’s kinda worked so far, no?
[/QUOTE]
Um…no. Even if you use the low end numbers for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s fairly clear that our intervention didn’t save any lives and arguable cost many more lives than had we just left them alone. We didn’t substantially reduce the misery quotient in either country, certainly not in the short term.
And an invasion of North Korea would be many times worse and cost many times more lives.
-XT
Hey, look at it this way: If we went to war with North Korea, there’s a chance we’d turn the people into radioactive zombie mutants who don’t need food. We’d be doing them a huge favor!
Sino-lapdogs? Does Pravda know you’re stealing their material?
Sino laptops. Get with the new lingo, folks!
Nothing. It was an example of the progression of technology from nigh on a decade ago; about the time your article dates. Forest > trees > palm > face.
I’m not saying you just surprise attack, in effect, both Koreas. You naturally accommodate for the expected collateral damage. After all, if the prospective civilian casualties are more or less know (given all the numbers quoted in these articles), surely some provisions can be made to mitigate the carnage…? I’d hazard a guess the South is riddled with rabbit holes already, being within armpit stench of the looney toon family for so long now.
Corrupt policeman… and I’m just urging them to do their job properly. The Korean war is more unfinished business for the malingering world police – the ‘peace’ is only a tenuous armistice, you do realise?
We could shoot articles back and forth like e-paper aeroplanes, but what the top brass proffer all amounts to dick when we accept the fact that they will always fudge figures to suit their bent. “Weapons of mass destruction” – ring a bell?
So seeing as people here are fond of offering up doomsday scenarios for Seoul if NK were attacked, here’s a curve ball back at ya: what if NK attack first? A Parthian shot, when they finally realise their position is untenable and resolve if they cannot have Korea, the West certainly will not either. What then?
I mean, it’s no more a far fetched postulation than the “Kims” suddenly taking a shine to the Statue of Liberty and erecting a Chinese imported knock-off in the centre of Pyong Yang(!); which is what I get the feeling people kinda think will eventually happen. :rolleyes:
You know, there’s another thread active at this very instant in which people predict what happens next in North Korea. Not a one of us has predicted a statue of liberty —but nice try.
You are effectively advocating screwing over a close American ally —how could you justify “mitigat[ing] the carnage” when it’s even easier to just not have the carnage in the first place?
Finally, arguing that the South would not get seriously damaged in a war is nothing more than wishful thinking. Do you really think that the military situation has fundamentally changed in the last eight years? Or do you have some citation that we know more now?
ETA: yeah right to a “Parthian shot”. Politics doesn’t work that way — the elites make the decisions, and no matter how bad things get, virtually all of them would be able to survive okay. They’re not going to give that up.
Who says the “storms in tea cups” of the Cold War were invariably the correct course of action for either side?
In any event, nuclear-armed or not, North Korea does not appear to be enough of a strategic threat to US interests to justify an invasion. Even less so, Myanmar/Burma.
I note the OP apparently bases his argument around the notion that the US should indeed be the world’s policeman. This is not a given. I believe there is something to be said for not incessantly launching ‘pre-emptive’ war, or whatever euphemism happens to be popular, against countries that are no realistic threat to US interests. Feel free to make the compelling argument for the ‘world police’ viewpoint that’s no doubt going to sway me from my position.
Then we’ll rain death from above, IMHO.
What country are you from and why aren’t they doing anything about North Korea?
National Geographic: Inside Undercover In North Korea
If you think this level of ingrained fanaticism cannot or will not affect America one day, then you may as well believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster will pull a deus ex machina when the Jongs launch that first nuke.
First of all, you’ve already been corrected, it’s the Kims, not the Jongs. Secondly, you don’t appear to be American. I’m guessing Australian? If you’re not American, why doesn’t your country do something about it? Does South Korea get a say in what happens?