I know this is ridiculous but why can’t we just blow them off the face of the earth?
No reason we can’t, plenty reasons we don’t.
Same difference. Why don’t we?
Honest question.
Who gave George Bush a login?
Because killing millions of civilians would be an abominable atrocity that would alienate the whole world. Because we can’t do it without risk of starting something even worse with China, which conflict might be an actual existential threat to the United States, which NK is not. Because, all around and on balance, practically every other conceivable way of dealing with NK and Kim appears preferable, including “Just ignore him until he shuts up.” These same calculations, to lesser degree, apply to an invasion or attack with non-nuclear weapons.
error
Because they’ll blow South Korea and Japan off the face of the earth.
I agree that “just ignor[ing] him until he shuts up” is a fine approach to deal with his histrionics. My concern about NK’s possession (and potential dissemination) of nuclear weapons remains, however. Ignoring him does not prevent, or even lessen, the chance of Kim using or exporting his nukes. In fact, you might even make the case that continuing to ignore him may cause Kim to eventually do something outrageous in order to get the world’s attention.
I have always been curious as to why China didn’t ‘adopt’ North Korea when they had the chance. I’m pretty sure that not many would complain too loudly if they marched in and took over. The US, Russia and China have each poured resource in to North Korea. The ‘aid’ has taken the form of substantial food aid, technical support for infrastructures as well as any number of commercial projects.
Seems that everyone got their fingers burned quite badly each time with China hanging on because of its not insubstantial trade links.
Its a sure thing that no one want a war. North Korea would lose, no question there, but bringing stability to the region will be a long an expensive haul. Meanwhile trade generally would get hit pretty hard.
For a man who was educated in Switzerland (and he is no slouch even if his sanity is questioned) I am at a loss to understand why such an environment didn’t at least soften his views on the West.
They don’t want them. They’re not Chinese, and it’s been in their interest to maintain a buffer between China and South Korea. That interest may be, and hopefully is, waning. They didn’t want Vietnam either. If Tibet had been a reasonable buffer between them and India they wouldn’t have gone in there.
Why would China,or anyone else, want NK?
China makes it a point to keep Koreans on their side of the border, and it was never part of te ancient Chinese tribute system (most of SE Asia was, as well as Tibet and Nepal).
There is not cultural, economic, geo-political reason to adopt it, and 24.5 million starving mouths saying “you don’t need this disaster”.
NK has lots of uranium and maybe rare earths - but those can be gotten by trade much more cheaply than the cost of running the place.
Again, RAND estimated the US would need between 250,000 and 400,000 troops to administer NK - I doubt if China could do it much more cheaply.
My question at this point is: after the twit fires off one or two missiles (at this point, he has tensions so high he doesn’t dare hitting anything (maybe an uninhabited island, by pre-arrangement)) and declares victory, is anybody going to give him the money he is trying to extort, or has e pushed so hard that everyone is going to use this as an opportunity to say "we are not putting up with you playing this game for the rest of your life. Learn this now: we are no longer going to reward threats.
Meantime, we need to secretly put in place the weapons required to sterilize the DMZ and 100 miles north withing 10 minutes. We have the (fuel-air/MOAB) technology - we just need ti abilty to saturate the area in less than 10 minutes to minimize their ability to shell SK.
If we blew them off the map first, wouldn’t that prevent them from doing the same?
I’m just saying I don’t want to see casualties for us, or any of our allies if it can be prevented. It seems the general course of action is to let them strike first and then we annihilate them. Why should we let them strike first and kill millions? Why shouldn’t we strike first and give them no chance at all to inflict any harm whatsoever?
We don’t realistically have the ability. Destroying that many dug in & hidden artillery pieces over that large an area close to a large city that we don’t want to destroy, and doing it before that artillery causes major damage to the city in question isn’t something we can pull off in practical terms. Not even if we went nuclear; Seoul would just be exchanging a artillery bombardment for massive amounts of fallout.
Why would the Palefaces want Sioux country? There’s something we Americans figured out a long time ago and we weren’t the first nor the last to: If you get rid of the people, you’ve still got the land. 
Old fashioned thinking.
Something late 20th century Americans figured out: if you find a land with cheap labor, you can let them ignore the ethics of labor standards and environmental regulations and get cheap iPhones in return.
Why would the US or China want the land without the people when they’d rather exploit the people and not deal with the land?
Most wealth these days isn’t in the land, it’s in the people and industry. And NK has rotten industry and ill educated, sickly people.
OTOH, if there’s any country that could use a bit of extra lebensraum it’s China.
my understanding is north Korea has 3 trump cards.
they have wmd. they have advanced chemical and biological weapons and the tools to fire them on south Korea and probably Japan. they supposedly don’t have the technology to put a nuke on a missile yet but their wmds used against large cities in south Korea and Japan are a serious concerns.
they have a special forces team of 100-200k soldiers who are supposed to infiltrate sk and Japan. they could possibly carry a nuke (maybe) or at least do a lot of destruction behind enemy lines.
north Korea has 10000 or so artillery pieces aimed at seoul in south Korea. by the time they are destroyed they will have already fired tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of shells. Plus they can put chemical or biological weapons in those shells.
we do not have the ability to stop them from causing tons of damage to sk or Japan. even if the us, China and south Korea teamed up and invaded preemptively the north would still be able to bomb the hell out of Japan and south Korea.
north Korea is a hostage situation, that is why the world doesn’t act.
And the bigger the weapon used (nuclear) the more Chinese and Russians die.
And China likes the food that comes from the adjoining province as it is, without radiation for the next 10 years.
So - you can’t attack without serious damage to SK, Japan, China, and Russia.
Nobody wants to see the place fall apart completely - there are 24.5 million people, most of whom are starving.
So, we wait while the outside world creeps in and the people follow the Soviet Union and decide food is better than missiles.
double post
nm