# Should the US attack North Korea before it's too late? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228 "2003-07-13T20:30:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/61 "2003-07-15T19:14:46Z")
**Dissonance** , nowhere did I say that my solutions were the only ones. They are suggestions thrown into the arena for consideration. You continue to point up flaws in whatever solutions are proposed without providing any of your own. That is not debating, it is only fruitless argument. Please step up to the plate with some real input or be dismissed as a nit picker. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/62 "2003-07-15T20:13:22Z")
**Zenster** , the OP is the question of should the US attack North Korea before it is too late. I’d have thought that it’s obvious that my answer to that question is no. It is already too late. North Korea has a large arsenal of chemical and conventional weapons that could inflict millions of casualties in the event of war. You aren’t calling for a solution to the problem, you are calling for a war that will inflict those casualties. This may not be what you intend, but it is what will result. If you are going to dismiss me as a nitpicker and feel that what I am writing isn’t real input, there is nothing I can do about that. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/63 "2003-07-16T02:33:28Z")
**Dissonance** , do you mean to say that permitting North Korea to continue unchecked will not result in any casualties? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/64 "2003-07-16T03:03:29Z")
**Zenster,** you have made a vigorous case for military action against NK, but you still have not explained how we can take such action without provoking China. Do you think we can? Do you think provoking China is a risk we can afford? Do you think we can go to war with China without nuclear weapons being used at some point? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/65 "2003-07-16T03:29:51Z")
**Sua** , My apologies. I was mistaken in my recollection of your statement regarding genocide versus use of chemical weapons. Of course, I was hoping for a cite other than “the freaking North Koreans” said so. They have said a lot of stuff, and are undeniably not shy of engaging in crazy bluster. So, do you have anything that would tend to confirm their claim? As to your second point: 1. After scanning your first linked article, I find no comment in it regarding Russia, China and Japan - so it does not seem to support your assertion. It does say that Seoul has been pushing for direct talks, while we would prefer multilateral talks. However, why pussyfoot around, avoiding speaking to them about the matter? What would have been lost to both sit down and talk with North Korea, and also compelling countries in the region to participate in the solution, should one have been identified? I am moderately able to find my way around Google, thanks. No need to be a dick. I have also been following our response to North Korea with and without Google ever since we decided to go to war with Iraq for their non-existent WMD while we ignored North Korea in their jumping up and down and shouting “we will develop them.” I would encourage you to seek out a more complete history of the situation, if you are challenged at all in recalling any aspects of it. I can suggest that you consider William Perry’s recent statements on the handling of the situation, described in another thread, and review this [timeline](http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/07/nkorea.timeline.nuclear/) , this discussion of the point at which it was evident that they were actually moving forward by breaking open the stores, from [Slate](http://slate.msn.com/id/2078063/) , and consider the opportunity that was lost when the North Koreans announced that they would be willing to participate in talks of any kind, and we did not take them up on it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/66 "2003-07-16T03:32:08Z")
I honestly don’t know that provoking China is the issue. NK is their problem as well. I think China could be finessed. The real problem is how do you deal with North Korea’s artillery aimed at Seoul, and its other weaponry? We have no real counter against them. There are thousands of them, many in hardened bunkers. I’m not even sure a tactical nuclear strike could take them out. In short, Kim has a really big freakin’ gun held to the head of South Korea. Another problem with a ‘surgical’ strike against the nuclear facilities is that North Korea has a parallel Uranium enrichment program which is hidden. And if he’s already reprocessed a bunch of fuel rods into weapons-grade material, it may already be hidden away. So there’s no guarantee that a surgical strike can remove his nuclear capability. But it’s important to also look at the alternative - If left unchecked, North Korea will be pumping out enough fissionables for at least five nuclear weapons a year. Once he detonates a test, he’s got the world by the balls. While attacking now would risk an artillery barrage of Seoul, it’s possible that attacking a year or two from now would risk nuclear detonations in Seoul, Tokyo, and about a dozen other major population and industrial centers. The big question is, what will Kim do once he has those nukes? Can he be deterred like the Soviet Union was? Can there be detente with a nuclear North Korea? My belief: Not bloody likely. Kim is nuts. He has a history of doing dangerous, insane things, often for very little reason or gain. For example, he risked conflict with South Korea by kidnapping one of their top movie stars and one of their top directors. Why? Because he wanted to be a famous movie director. The little nutbar still writes movie reviews and submits them to South Korean newspapers - which never publish them. This guy is a a couple of tomatoes short of a thick, rich sauce. I don’t think the world can afford to let him have nuclear weapons, period. I don’t know how to solve this problem - none of the proposed solutions are good ones. All I know is, it would be insanity to think that a nuclear North Korea can be managed safely. And the stakes are FAR higher than they were in Iraq. Millions could die. Hundreds of thousands could die if a Kim retaliates against a surgical strike. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/67 "2003-07-16T05:46:37Z")
> [@](#): > > [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/15/nkorea.nukes/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/15/nkorea.nukes/index.html) > > some U.S. national security experts believe the diplomatic solution is a failure. > > The most prominent among them is former defense secretary William Perry, who told The Washington Post he thinks North Korea and the United States may be heading toward war. > > Perry told the Post in an interview published Tuesday that after speaking to several senior administration officials he is baffled by Bush’s policy on North Korea. > > “I’m damned if I can figure out what the policy is,” he said. “My theory is the reason we don’t have a policy on this, and we aren’t negotiating, is the president himself.” > > “I think he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and it is immoral to negotiate with him,” Perry told the Post. ---
**Author:** ![starman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@starman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starman)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/68 "2003-07-16T10:03:51Z")
In regards to a naval blockade being an act of war: While a naval blockade would legally constitute an act of war, this is not exactly the point. The question is nut whether such an operation is an act of war, but rather whether it is an act that would lead to war. I do not believe the North Koreans would declare war over a naval blockade. The positive outcomes of such a blockade are significant, i.e reducing cash flow for weapons programs, reducing illicit trade in nuclear technology and so on. However, as mentioned by previous posters, a blockade can only be one component of a broader plan, which should include bilateral US-NK talks in adittion to heavy diplomatic and economic pressure from regional powers. However, at no stage should war be so much as contemplated. War in the current regional environment could only presage an utter catastrophe. -Oli ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/69 "2003-07-16T10:22:56Z")
From **sailor** ’s CNN story above: > [@](#): > > But there is a clear view among some in Washington that North Korea is upping the ante to gain bargaining power to get what it wants: a non-aggression pact with the United States, as well as more oil and food aid. Those North Koreans are just so fucking unreasonable aren’t they? > [@](#): > > One Bush administration source said North Korea’s declarations may make U.S. attempts at multilateral pressure easier because it forces neighbors to take the issue more seriously. Coz, you know, China’s gonna take Bush’s intelligence and world learership _real_ seriously _now_. It’s pretty clear what’s going on. Bush wants to invade. NK doesn’t want Bush to invade. Bush’s strategy is _another_ recipe for disaster, and it’s based solely on the “axis-of-evil” “war-on-terror” bullshit that the Iraq invasion was based on. Bush should get a BJ. That way, everyone would know that he had a dick. He wouldn’t have to try to _prove_ that he had a dick by killing loads of people. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/70 "2003-07-16T16:16:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\ ***Dissonance** , do you mean to say that permitting North Korea to continue unchecked will not result in any casualties? \*\* No. What I am saying is that a war with North Korea should be the last resort to solve the situation. Throwing down an ultimatum that is clearly going to be rejected and conducting military operations against North Korea that will be met with a response of force are not wise options until all others have been completely exhausted. You continue to claim that North Korea has no trump card when they do. Even ignoring chemical weapons, a conventional shelling of Seoul would result in mass civilian casualties. A war would result in mass military and civilian casualties. China and South Korea are vital players in the situation and can’t be dismissed as irrelevant. This may belong better in your thread on the subject, but before you dismiss North Korea’s military as being crippled by it’s abysmal economy, this is informative on the subject: [Global Security on the North Korean Army](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm) > [@](#): > > Before the winter 2000 training, some had suggested that North Korea’s economic crisis had caused North Korean training to decline considerably. Such a decline, in combination with maintenance and support difficulties, would have minimized the conventional threat posed by North Korean forces. For larger units, most North Korean training is traditionally done during the winter training cycle, but little training went on in the winter of 1999. The winter of 1998 was a more robust training period (though less than historical patterns in some ways). > > The North Korean performance in the winter 2000 training was relatively impressive, suggesting that previous judgments have been premature. Immediately following the June 2000 summit, the North Korean People’s Army training cycle in the summer of 2000 was the most extensive ever recorded. It was preceded by the most ambitious winter training cycle for the past ten years. Training levels since 2000 have been record-breaking, with the focus on improving the readiness of major offensive forces. Regarding a blockade: North Korea may not invade South Korea immediately over the issue, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if there is some military reaction, be it cross border shelling, commando raids conducted along the coast or attacks against US vessels enforcing the blockade. They would legally be in the right in doing so or in invading South Korea as the US would have de facto declared war. Allowing North Korea to attain the moral high ground is not something that the US should work towards. A far better option would be to work through the UN if things come down to this, particulary since there would be nothing stopping deliveries for North Korea from going through China or Russia. US naval vessels intercepting Chinese or Russian flagged vessels without UN backing does not make for good foreign policy. Neither does bombing bridges and raillines connecting North Korea to China and Russia. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228/71 "2003-07-21T18:52:54Z")
Personally, I do not believe that there is any time to spend on waiting. North Korea’s stated intention to sell nuclear material or weapons to the highest bidder must be countered immediately. They must also be made lucidly aware of the fact that launching a single chemical or biological shell will get a nuclear response. In addition, North Korea should be warned in crystal clear terms that any nuclear material detonated in another country which bears the isotope fingerprint of their own reactors will also result in the nuclear annihilation of their nation. I heartily concur in seeking UN participation. I also urge unilateral action if the least footdragging happens. This world can no longer tolerate such subversive influences as North Korea. Such inflammatory rhetoric and threats should be rewarded with overthrow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-attack-north-korea-before-its-too-late/188228.md?page=3)