We had a war – it didn’t go well for either side, we agreed on a stalemate.
You’re not really here for the hunting, are you?
Maybe if they had more oil…
They don’t need it if this can be used.
US foreign policy regarding the “Axis of Evil”* (patent applied for) *
If they possess oil, send weapons of mass destruction;
If they possess weapons of mass destruction, send oil.
The answer to this question is simple. International law. It is understandable that people in the US don’t know much about international law. It is that way because the US government violates international law on a daily basis.
The truth is that North Korea is a member in good standing of the UN. There is a large body of international law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1649 which prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other states.
Also, there is no prohibition on tests of nuclear weapons by states which are not signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
And yet somehow, Russia and China aren’t seeing the moral duty you’re placed upon them.
Well, they might not be in such good standing, they are in direct defiance of some 5 or 6 Security Council resolutions (I doubt anybody is keeping count anymore) regarding their nuclear weapons program.
That said, I don’t see what the big deal is. The North Korean population appears to be satisfied with their leadership, and that leadership appears to be well sound enough to possess as many nuclear weapons as they desire. I see no reason to fear that they may provide any nuclear weapons to any rogue states or terrorist organizations, and the UN Security Council would surely send them a harshly worded letter should they do so.
They.have.nukes.
The thing about international law is that even when something is considered customary international law and no universal treaty is therefore required, sovereign countries always have the power to disagree or limit what they think the custom being given the force of law actually is. All sovereign states follow international law selectively when it suits their interests.
There is no “good standing” category for UN member states. There are just member states that are in arrears for their annual UN budget contribution and those that aren’t. North Korea’s required budget contribution for 2016 was only roughly $125,000. But UN Security Council resolutions are considered to have the force of international law when either forbidding, compelling, or allowing some action or activity to take place. Apart from the general UN Charter Article 51 concept of self-defense and collective self-defense, the 1991 Gulf War was considered lawful under international law due to UN Security Council Resolution 678 authorizing member states to use military force against Iraq.
The funny thing is that the OP could have made the exact same argument about invading Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein was just as brutal to his people as Kim Jong-Un is.
But I’m guessing the OP would be horrified by the comparison. We invaded Iraq; therefore invading Iraq was wrong. We haven’t invaded North Korea; therefore not invading North Korea is wrong.
I’m sure if the United States actually changed its course and invaded North Korea, the OP would do an immediate 180 and denounce the invasion as being imperialist, capitalist, western, and white.
Welcome to the SDMB Kim! There is no such thing as international law in a binding sense. There are only sovereign nation-states that agree to abide by some treaties and conditions as long as they see fit. Everything else is just a matter of courtesy especially when you are dealing with a lone superpower like the U.S. There may be serious consequences for violating an agreement but the severity of that varies greatly based on the context. There are no governmental, administrative or military forces in the world that can do anything to the U.S. without mutual consent.
I agree that the U.S. nor anyone else should do anything to North Korea unless they attack South Korea directly. They are a sovereign nation-state no matter how terrible and they are perfectly free to run one of the shittiest countries in the world for as long as they want to. It is really none of anyone else’s business as long as they don’t attack anyone else.
I’m significantly-more skeptical that we could do much to disrupt North Korean artillery before it reduced much of Seoul to rubble and killed hundreds of thousands or millions. Could you explain why you think FAE bombs would be an effective strategy?
In addition to the other reasons, every day the Kim regime stays in control is a day where nobody has to find the trillion dollars needed to fix the place.
There is a reason France used to offer immunity to dictators. It was frequently the best way of getting them to leave their country in an orderly fashion after they had looted the treasury.
I wonder if China could do something similar for Kim Jung Un and his friends if he managed an orderly transition of power to a more democratic communist regime.
North Korea is fine, it is at or above where South Korea was in the 1970’s. It might take a trillion dollars to bring it up to modern South Korean standards but why would you need to do that? The development of North Korea could provide incredible economic stimulus to the South Korea economy if the money doesn’t get frittered away on hookers and blow. They could finance it with their rich mineral deposits.
I think against an aging and probably poorly built to begin with bunker system, this would be quite effective.
Most countries in the world respect NK’s sovereignty because there’s zero they can do about it.
China respects NK’s sovereignty to annoy the US, and to discourage another intervention. The US respects NK’s sovereignty because it doesn’t want to get in a fight with China. South Korea respects NK’s sovereignty because it doesn’t want a hundred thousand casualties in the first hours of an artillery barrage from them.
They’re fine bombs. The problem is that, even with really awesome bombs, we just don’t have the air power and coordination necessary to deliver enough of them in short enough of a window for an effective “first strike” against North Korea. We’re in a MAD-like scenario where yes, we can eventually incapacitate their artillery, but not before they’ve killed a whole bunch of the residents of Seoul.
/thread