I vote " no" because I’m almost done with college and it will be me and friends getting killed in that hell hole.
I’m just going to come right out and say it: I don’t believe them.
I don’t want to attack NK. I think we SHOULD wait for a mushroom cloud before we take action. I don’t think for a second that they are going to do anything serious to us. Therefore, peace takes priority. I don’t especially care if they do build a nuke delivery system. Using it would be suicide. So let them test, let us sanction, and let the world continue to go around
Where to even begin.
[li]They have the bomb.[/li][li]They have chemical and bio weapons.[/li][li]They don’t even need the first two.[/li][li]Our South Korean allies won’t like being thrown under the bus.[/li][li]There is nothing remotely new in the rhetoric coming out of the DPRK news organs, see the official DPRK news and feel free to browse through past stories. It is and always has been hardcore Stalinist propaganda; fully peppered with puppet this and the peoples just struggle that with fawning over our Dear Leader.[/li][/ul]Why don’t they need the bomb or chemical weapons? The greater metropolitan area of Seoul is home to 25 million people. It’s also right across the border from North Korea and within range of a good part of North Korea’s 10,000 artillery pieces. From the IISS The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula:
I don’t. Why on earth would they, much less immediately with the only weapon they have as soon as they make it? Suicidal and insane are not the same thing.
Besides, if SK goes, where will get our big screen TVs from?
Wow, how did I miss this question?
No, not at all. They couldn’t possibly destroy the U.S.’ ability to retaliate, and they would be routed pretty quickly by the U.S. and its Asian allies. Why would you think they might even consider this?
Just wait. They have an excellent chance of collapsing on their own.
Definitely disagree. I see no purpose in bringing this situation to a head and sparking what would probably be a nuclear war on the soil of one of our closest allies, killing hundreds of thousands or even millions in one of the biggest trade routes in the world.
Eventually this thing will play itself out one way or another anyway. Maybe the North will finally just disintegrate and fall apart. That will certainly leave a huge mess and a humanitarian crisis, but thems the breaks. Maybe the North will attack the South…which means we will go to war anyway, but we will have tried to avert the crisis. Maybe the North will actually launch a missile at the US with a nuke on board. If they do, I’d say the odds are that it won’t work anyway, or will blow up en-route. If it doesn’t, the the US will be justified in wiping out the North…but it won’t be us instigating this, we will have tried to avert an all out war.
Hell, your best bet would simply be to target their infrastructure. Their entire system is hanging by a thread and could fail any time. Disrupt their logistics even a bit and the whole house of cards would come down. Here’s the thing though…doing so would undoubtedly unleash a retaliatory strike back at South Korea. The North would lash back with a barrage of artillery strikes on the South’s capital and probably do a hell of a lot of damage and kill a lot of people. Then you have the result of targeting the Norths logistics, which would be that basically you’d have a huge humanitarian disaster on your hands, with thousands, possibly millions starving. The North is ALREADY on the verge of this crisis…pretty much perpetually. Tipping them over would be really bad, and consider how that would make America look to the rest of the world AND how we’d feel about millions of starving North Koreans that we deliberately caused to be in that situation by pushing this issue when we didn’t have too. It would be cold comfort to come back and say ‘well, we thought they might attack us with nuclear weapons in a few decades when they worked the kinks out’…sort of like how a lot of us felt after the Iraqi invasion really started to hit home.
I doubt the North Koreans would thank us any more than the Iraqis did for saving them in the long term by putting them in a short and medium term horrific mess. I doubt the South Koreans would thanks us much either, since they would be the ones getting the crap bombed out of their capital, and who would be getting flooded with starving refugees. The Chinese would be in the same boat…and they wouldn’t thank us either.
Mainland China doesn’t have troops in Taiwan. I’m doubtful they could get any there, and think it’s highly unlikely they get enough there to conquer the place.
What’s with the “if”? They already have the bomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
I see a lot of : “the Koreans” and those “people”.
We all know that “those people” are just the ruling elite, right? The vast majority of North Koreans are essentially being held hostage by a communist regime. Many might be brainwashed into actually thinking the west is the enemy, but I can’t imagine that doing much more than giving them some food for pity’s sake, is all it would take to change their minds…
I’d vote for anything that kills/removes the ruling party, but causes the least amount of harm to the people. I’m afraid a full-on invasion would kill too many innocent people.
I don’t know that either statement is true. Yes, we can take North Korea if we choose to do it, but they are not Iraq. Things didn’t exactly go smoothly for us last time we invaded that country, and barring the use of nukes, I would not expect such an undertaking to be nearly as easy as you seem to think.
Der Trihs is correct when he says that we can’t stop NK from destroying Seoul. They’ve got dug-in artillery in range of the city.
They’ve also got the means to resist a bombing campaign for longer than Iraq ever did. Eventually, we can and would establish air superiority, but it won’t be easy…or inexpensive.
And a ground invasion over there would be a bloodbath, assuming their forces fight, and I think they would at least at first.
We know they’ve tested something like a nuke themselves. They’ve announced plans to test another one. We don’t know how many they have. Even a flawed nuke could wipe out an invasion fleet, or massed tanks/infantry, or whatever else they choose. Add in some potential for chemical and biological weapons and a regime that might actually use them.
War with North Korea scares the hell out of me. If you knew more about military matters, it would scare the hell out of you too. Yes, we can win…but the cost could be horrific.
Not as long as the US keep sending them food supplies. (Is the US still)?
We used to make television sets in Arkansas.
This may be a Good Thing.
Where? I’d think we’d be aware of it, whether from satellite imagery or seismology.
It wouldn’t be against ‘North Korea’, it would be against a despotic regime and an impoverished, generationally propagandised and hopelessly ignorant/naive population that needs to be released from its nightmare existence.
God help those poor, often starving people.
I disagree that the US military in the 50s is a good example to compare to the US military in 2013. I think it would be pretty equivalent, not to the Korean war, but to the first Gulf War.
We would establish air superiority in a day or so. (Yes, Seoul would get the shit shelled out of it in the meantime.) But from that point on, absent nukes, it would be a turkey shoot.
In any kind of military-to-military confrontation like this one would be, the US is absolutely invincible. We send in the tank killers, and wipe their armored divisions off the face of the earth. Station our navy off the coast, out of artillery range, and kill their artillery.
I think the biggest problem would be handling the enormous numbers of North Koreans who want to surrender, which they would do practically en masse.
Rebuilding, or rather building, North Korea would be a nightmare, no doubt about it, but that is not the same thing as saying the war itself would be all that hard.
The first part is my main point. There is no way the Kim regime survives that war. I don’t mean to make specific predictions because I can’t- although I will say I’m kind of inured to dire forecasts about how tough a future military opponent might be. Those comments usually turn out to be inflated. Iraq and Afghanistan were messes because the U.S. and its allies weren’t ready for insurgencies that followed the actual invasion part. And in a hypothetical war with North Korea the U.S. would have a great deal more help because nobody in the region (or anywhere else, really) is going to want to see a North Korean regime that is willing to use nuclear weapons.
Yes, I know. But if they actually attack either South Korea or the U.S., I don’t think anybody’s going to hold off for fear that Seoul will be in the line of fire. It’s going to be kind of a given at that point.
So horrific you’d oppose an invasion even after they used a nuclear weapon?
I am normally quite against pre-emptive action. I was very much against the Iraq war, even though I ended up serving in it. But this feels different. We have a head of state actively pursuing long range ballistic missiles and flat out saying their goal is to nuke the US.
I would have no problem with us staging a full on assault on NK to utterly obliterate the government and military machine. That is, only if we talk to China first, and they sign off. I say that only because China’s relations with North Korea have become increasingly strained, but if an invasion of North Korea would result in full scale war with China, then, well, that’s not going to end well for anyone.
I think a full scale war with North Korea would be very bad…but frankly, our Navy could destroy theirs with little issue, and if we go full on devastation to their military complex to begin with, BEFORE they have long range nuclear capabilities, then we should be able to cripple them pretty quickly, and at the very least avoid major US civilian casualties. If we wait until they can lob nukes at California, it could be very bad indeed.