I don’t dispute your statistics, but to be consistent and to “put it into perspective”, I will add that 2 in 3 European Jews died, including 9/10 in Poland, more than 9/10 in Lithuania and Latvia, etc. Second link if you don’t like the first.
IME, the overshelming majority of Americans, sadly, don’t know the difference between North Korea and South Korea.
Let my clarify again, to Broomstick and others. I’m not saying that I think the reason we had to into those wars I mentioned at the time, was to protect people. I’m saying: If I ask someone today, if he thinks we should invade Germany in the 1940s, if we were not forced to, he probably would say yes. And he probably would argue that you cannot let such an evil nation conquor and kill the Jews and the Slavs etc. If I ask someone whether that person thinks it was worth fighting the American civil war against the south, even if it was only to free the slaves, again that person would probably answer yes. So my question is: Why does that hypothetical person not feel the same about North Korea?
Cities. The cities of Seoul and Incheon. And a few other “small” cities, such as Bucheon (population of almost one million), included in the area. That area has about half the population of South Korea.
There’s no doubt amongst a fair number of people I know from Japan, South Korea, China, and the US that if anyone were fool enough to actually launch a military attack on North Korea, the first thing North Korea would do is launch an attack on both Seoul and Tokyo.
OP: You need to read more history and more news.
Right, it was horribly devastating to the European Jews… but what percentage of Jews world wide did they represent? It’s not like the average Jew in the US knew what was going on in the early years of the war. Sure, that side of my family lost contact with their European relatives after 1939 but there was a war on, you lose track of people as they flee, move around, etc. It wasn’t until an escapee from an Auschwitz-bound train showed up as a refugee in the local high school in the early '40’s that my father’s family started to get a clue, and even that kid was far from clear on what happened at the camps, he really only knew that no one who went there ever returned. He didn’t find out the fate of his family and village until after the war was over. Even those with the greatest self-interest in what was going on were often unaware unless they were among those physically at the camps and massacres.
Also - most gentiles didn’t really give a fig about the Jews. Yes, it’s horrific, but it’s hardly the only massacre and attempted genocide in history, or even the 20th Century. While it was certainly important to Jews just about every nation at the time happily turned away ships full of Jewish refugees, condemning them to death, including the US. Why don’t we in the US wring our hands and weep over the death of 25% of Belarus in WWII? Because we don’t care about them. It’s impossible to care about everyone, and everyone cares more about some people than others. I’m sure there are people in Eastern Europe who wonder why the rest of the world doesn’t seem to give a damn about their losses in WWII.
Again, it parallels what we see with North Korea - most non-Koreans don’t care enough to die for the cause, or risk their fellow citizens for the cause. Maybe we should all love each other more and care about our fellow human beings but reality seems to be a bit different than that. Right now, North Korea isn’t perceived as a global threat. One of the ugly reasons we aren’t “doing something” is because outside of South Korea, and to a lesser extent Japan and China, no one sees them as an immediate threat. As long as North Korea makes no move to push beyond its current borders I expect the world will be happy to leave them stew in their own private hell. It would only be after such a war that the rest of the world will give enough of a damn to wish something had been done sooner.
For damn sure we don’t know every horror that is currently going on in North Korea.
Is that really true, though? I don’t know much about international strategy, but it seems if you really had the resources, and the support of the population behind it, you could do something.
What about some stealth operation or arranged assassination of the leadership? What about giving China free reins and a large sum of money to do the invasion?
Yeesh, what is it with the repeated claims that I should read more. I know that they would fight back. That’s why I gave the other examples of wars people support oday, even though the opponent fought back. Besides, maybe an actual military attack is not the only option.
Anyway, my question was not focused on whether or not NK are actually capable of a nuclear strike on Tokyo. The question is, why is it that people don’t particularly care about rescuing the North Koreans, and only care about the tiny risk of NK aggression against other countries? Why not at rally behind the cause, and at least fully evaluate whether there is something that could possibly be done?
I’d say we needed to fight Germany NOT to protect the Jews/Slavs/Etc (although that is an important, valuable, and worthwhile side effect) but to prevent one nation from wiping out dozens of others. Wholesale slaughter to obtain more room and resources for your tribe is unacceptable in the modern world. I wouldn’t focus on a particular group or groups but rather on the unacceptable effects on everyone touched by such a conquering nation.
Questionable. If the person actually knows world history at the time they might well argue that slavery was moribund anyway (it was being outlawed elsewhere on a steady basis) and would have died out with considerably less social disruption and upheaval if that war had not been fought, possibly evading such evils as Jim Crow and the KKK. Other nations that practiced slavery and profited from the sale of Africans have not had the same social fall out from discontinuing slavery as the US did, nor did they have to fight a bloody, savage war over it.
I actually DO care about North Korea. That’s why I have attempted to educate myself about the matter (though I am still very far from expert). That education has convinced me that the current status quo, as horrible as it may be, could very well be the lesser evil. Am I willing to watch millions die to upend the Kim Dynasty and its cesspit? No, actually, I’m not. I’m certainly not willing to risk such an invasion spreading into a wider conflict.
It’s not that I don’t care about North Korea - I do - but I ALSO care about the South Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, and others who will die if we attempt to force change. There is no way to make that change without spilling blood.
We could let them take the country instead. Perhaps they wouldn’t mind an expansion of their empire. Especially if we gave them money to help rebuild it. It would probably also go easier down with the Korean people, if they are taken over by another pseudo-communist country.
China doesn’t want North Korea, they would have taken it long ago if they did. We don’t have any money to give China, they give us money. The Korean people in general are more concerned about getting something to eat than the political structure of the ruling government. You don’t seem to have any idea of what is happening there.
Ok. Why do you assume that killing the leadership would make a difference. They’re already on top of the hill, why would they put themselves put for the trouble to change it? And why would China bother? What do they get out of it?
I don’t understand the second sentence?
I don’t think assassinating the leader by itself would make a difference. The next in line would just take over. But possibly combined with some kind of coup, or a take-over from someone more sympathetic. I don’t really know how you would go about these things. I think that no matter how you would go about it, it would require a large amount of funding.
Money, a larger empire. These are things countries generally like.
Support of whose population? The US? The US is tired of fighting wars at this point, and pouring wealth into them when there are so many problems at home. China? China is technically the only friend North Korea has, and supplies them with food, fuel, and other support. North Korea? The population has been brainwashed from infancy to hate and fear Americans and their allies, they will NOT welcome us, or any in the west, with open arms. In fact, the first they do will be to react as any nation reacts when invaded: dig in and fight the invaders.
Are you actually naive enough to think that taking out the current figurehead would be sufficient? You’d have to wipe out the entire extended Kim family, just to start. Then there are all the others who have profited from the current power structure who’d be willing to step into the shoes of the Great Leader. It’s not just one assassination you’d have to pull off but dozens if not hundreds… by which time you’ve more or less started a war.
If China wanted to invade North Korea today I’d expect the rest of the world to sit back and let them invade. China already has the resources and means to do that, they don’t need anyone else’s help. China has the world’s largest military, they have nukes along with everything else a full modern military needs or wants.
You are making statements that indicate you do not fully understand what you are talking about.
What would you suggest?
Sanctions don’t seem to have worked - North Korea was sanctioned until it was without electricity (for the most part), fuel for private vehicles, or even sufficient food yet it did not cave. The rest of the world caved and started sending food aid rather than watch millions starve to death.
Please, what are you other suggestions?
Again, it’s not that people don’t care about the North Koreans, it’s that they also care about everyone else nearby.
“Tiny risk of NK aggression”? Are you from an alternate-history universe or something? They have killed hundreds of people since the original 1953 cease fire, technically they are still at war having never officially ended the Korean War, they’ve kidnapped both South Korean and Japanese citizens, they have carried out assassinations on defectors, there was that business of kidnapping a US ship awhile back and imprisoning its crew (we did get them all back in the end), repeated attempts to tunnel under the DMZ, shelling South Korean islands… No, it’s NOT a “tiny risk” at all. What makes you think the risk is small? There is every indication that North Korea is entirely serious about destroying Seoul. They are certainly freakin’ serious enough about a nuclear arsenal to conduct multiple tests and on-going research
Tiny war-- ha! Just because the country is smaller than the US doesn’t make the war tiny. We could depose the leadership in a matter of weeks, sure. We’re really, really good at that sort of war. But we’ve had a lot of experience in the last hundred years at setting up new states after we depose the leadership, and we’ve discovered that it’s really, really hard. The North Koreans have a massive army, and you wouldn’t be able to destroy the whole thing without some really disgusting massacres, and that would really piss off the families of those massacred. Remember, a huge chunk of the population (probably a majority, though obviously hard numbers on that sort of thing are hard to come by) are true believers in the juche system, and would happily believe anything evil of us, especially when we’re bombing them. If you don’t destroy the army, then you’re facing the most intractable, hard-bitten guerrilla war you’ve ever seen; men who are already used to extreme starvation and hardship being supported by a populace who’re likewise fanatically dedicated to the cause. You’re talking about an occupation against guerrilla insurgents, and the US is very, very tired of that kind of war.
There are definitely people in North Korea who don’t support the regime. Those people are the sorts who tend to escape, and therefore we hear their stories much more frequently. Don’t let that fool you into believing that the population of North Korea at large wants to be freed from the Kim family rule.
What I meant to say was that the average US person seems to only be focused on the risk to himself, or to other countries, from NK attacks. They are not focused on the population inside NK, for the most part. The risk for a US citizen to suffer from an attack by NK is tiny, but that is a concern that is generally weighed above saving the enslaved population.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Perhaps China (possibly justified) feels that the world would turn against them if they showed themselves as such an unjustified aggressor. Perhaps they think the cost would be too large. These two factors could be countered by showing unilateral support for this invasion, and by donating large sums of money for the invasion and subsequent rebuilding of the country.
I wonder how the North Koreans would feel about that? Or don’t they get a say, ever?
Funny thing about China - historically on occasion they’ve retreated from Empire building not due to defeat in war or bad economies but simply because the rulers weren’t interested in expanding. That’s not a particularly common situation, but China tends to not be as expansionist as other nations.
Right now, they don’t seem particularly interested in acquiring more territory, and certainly not more people. They seem happy to engage in economic expansion rather than traditionally imperial sorts of expansion.
I’m of the opinion that post-WWII nations have preferred NOT to expand territorially but rather to engage in economic empire building because it saves the bother of having to administer and control the new territories, but that’s solely an opinion.
Uh… are you completely unaware that China has arguably the healthiest and fastest growing economy in the world today? Why the [expletive deleted] would anyone need to give China money these days? They aren’t poor anymore.
Good lord - see, it’s statements like that that make the rest of us think you’re ignorant of history. No, it doesn’t “go easier down with” people to get invaded by someone else, not ever, no matter how similar you seem to think they are.
Do you think the US would somehow be OK with being controlled by, say, the British Empire - oh, wait, we weren’t, were we, we fought two wars over that one. Do you think Austria was OK with being invaded by Germany in WWII? No, wait, we covered WWII already. OK, do you think Poland, Romania, et al were OK with being controlled by the USSR? They were all Slavic, right? (well, not all of Eastern Europe, but you get the idea).
No, sorry - I just don’t see the North Koreans being happy with being absorbed by China. They might regard it as a lesser evil but OK with it? Never.
You’re back to talking about starting a war.
No, clearly you don’t.
Ok, this is the last of your posts I’m going to answer. I don’t find this kind of debate very plesant. You are aware of the economic concept of prices? If you have something of value, or are capable of performing some service, another person can pay you a certain price for that good or service. You would then sell this good, or perform this service to the other person. This can happen even if you are not poor.
Why should I care in the least? They are people I don’t know in a shitty country on the other side of the planet who aren’t a threat to me in any direct way.
Musicat, you might have a point if there had been even the slightest groundswell of public support for our operations in those countries. But I believe you will find that the majority of Americans were either against or had no opinion about all of them. Of course, the American government had an interest. But not the American people as a whole.
The west and china already give lots and lots of food and aid to the koreans to keep them from starving.