When the US attacked Iraq in gulf war 1, iraq had WMD but they never used them. I dont know if North Korea would do the same thing, but if they expected ‘regime change’ i dont think they would hold back any.
I dont see what the big deal is with nukes. North korea has had chemical weapons for decades, they are just as destructive as nukes if used properly but nobody mentions them.
Plus the north Korean people probably deeply love Kim Jong Il and the N. Korean government and hate the US. Trying to invade & build a new government would result in guerilla war that makes whats going on in Iraq seem pretty tame. I remember watching a 60 minutes special about N Korean children and the diary of ann frank, in their minds they were preparing to commit guerilla warfare against the US when they invaded.
Overall, no i dont see it happening unless they attack first. The US, S Korea and Japan have too much to lose by the US attacking.
Actually nuclear weapons are vastly more destructive than chemical weapons. Chemical weapons can be used as terror weapons against unarmed, unprepared civilians–of course, so can conventional bombs–but a modern, well-prepared army can take substantial defensive measures against chemical weapons. Even against relatively undefended targets chemical weapons are tricky to use and very susceptible to weather conditions and so on. Even a relatively primitive nuclear weapon, on the other hand, can be counted on to devastate a large portion of a major city and cause tens of thousands of deaths, without regard to which way the wind is blowing or whether or not its raining. On top of that, nuclear weapons have lingering aftereffects from radioactive fallout which may cause suffering and death to people hundreds of miles from the target zone. Granted, fallout may be mitigated or aggravated by which way the wind is blowing, just like the effects of chemical weapons, but fallout is just an additional destructive effect of nuclear weapons, on top of the blast and firestorms at ground zero. See the article “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Meaningless by Gregg Easterbrook, originally from The New Republic.
By the way, just for the record, we don’t really know if North Korea has nuclear weapons or not. They claim to have nuclear weapons, but in a world where countries we don’t like that don’t yet have nuclear weapons and we that we consider potentially threatening get invaded, it makes sense for them to claim to already have nukes whether it is true or not.
I hope everyone is aware that Seoul is targeted by enough conventional artillery to be leveled should outright hostilities start.
China isn’t real happy to have a crazy as batshit neighbor either, and doesn’t have much control over NKOR. Not that China really wants the US of A to set up a colony in Korea or anything. However, I don’t see it as fanciful in the least if the situation really gets bad for China to join in with the UN on a solution. Wiping out Nkor is bad for business, and that is one thing that China does understand even if there are plenty of headlines on the contrary.
You know, I don’t think anyone posting about attacking North Korea is serious. I think it’s more of a back-handed way of taking a jab at the Bush administration: “You’re going to attack Iraq, so why not North Korea? It’s much more dangerous! You’re a hypocrite!” That sort of thing.
But the fact is, the Administration hasn’t done anything about North Korea simply because there are no good options. Negotiating with them one-on-one is a bad idea, because it just causes them to engage in brinksmanship and make demands, while they clearly do not feel compelled to keep any bargains they make. And has China Guy has pointed out, there’s no good way to attack them, because North Korea can turn Seoul into a moonscape just with its vast array of conventional mortars.
To say nothing of the economic damage a war in Korea would cause. South Korea is now an industrial powerhouse in the world - severe war damage there could throw us into a worldwide recession. Hundreds of thousands of dead in the opening hours of a conflict, perhaps, and huge economic disaster.
The one good option with North Korea is to involve China. China is the only country that has real leverage over North Korea that doesn’t involve military threats. China can cut off energy, refuse imports and exports, etc., and really put the screws to North Korea. No one else can. This is why the Administration keeps demanding that China be part of a multi-national approach to North Korea.
I would think that the people who opposed the Iraq war because it wasn’t multinational enough would support this strategy.