Is N Korea really a threat?

[whichphilosophy]

A better question is, are the people around him suicidal?

We can't take the gamble of hoping they will stop him. If we take that gamble, we also have to gamble that Guatemala and Argentina and Vietnam and Thailand and Kazakhstan and Malaysia etc. etc. etc. will have non-suicidal leaders running their nuclear arsenals, which will surely exist if we let NK profit from its nuclear program. How long will the world be safe as the nuclear weapons programs expand to every big and small country and all are trusted to have no one suicidal in charge?

I'm guessing that he's got at least a few generals around who know . . .

We can't rely on guessing. You have to extend this same guesswork to all the other countries who will also follow this strategy if it's allowed to work for North Korea.

So it's better to eliminate this expanding risk and prevent them having the capability at all. By showing them now that this strategy will not work.

. . . that there's probably a US missile sub cruising the Pacific which contains more warheads than they'll ever have, and that there's absolutely nothing they could do if we decided to park it off their coast. Would they stand around while the fat kid sealed their fate?

Maybe they'd stop him -- but then what? Since the nuclear threat worked for them, 50 or 100 other countries will adopt the same strategy, and eventually some other country's "fat kid" will start a nuclear war. We can't assume that every small country will have the checks on their "fat kid" to prevent him from going too far. Each time they succeed in using their nuclear threat to gain a small concession, they'll come back again with another demand for bigger concessions. Eventually it'll all blow up, one way or another.

Mutually Assured Destruction worked in part because of rational actors on both sides. With North Korea, there's no "mutually" about it, so what remains to be seen is if there are people in the regime who know that and will act rationally as a result.

We can't throw the dice to find out. And then have to do the same again and again, as more and more tiny nations adopt the nuclear weapons strategy.

It has to be demonstrated to all of them that this strategy will not work. We must make NK an object lesson for them.

We cannot let the threat continue to increase, and just hope there will never be a crazy "fat kid" in control. There could easily be another "fat kid" some time in the future who'll be even worse than the current one.

History shows that when the US brings about regime change the situation turns for the worse. North Korea was experimenting for years on this and no one did anything.

We don't know what the capacity of North Korea is nor would many people wish to gambol millions of lives at this point to find out.

It's current capacity is likely to be far less than it claims. It is only just now able to launch missiles that land more than just a few miles.

The US and China left it for years without doing anything. Sanctions are useless, it only gets used as propaganda in North Korea.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was stationed in South Korea for a year. From what I saw, the best plan is to pack up, go home, forget about North Korea, tell everyone that what they do with North Korea is their own business, that we don't care.

As a member of the military I was supposed to be protecting the US. From what I personally saw, the Air Force is protecting the Army, the Army is protecting the Marines, and the Marines are protecting the Air Force. Take any one of them out, and the next would lose their need to be there, and that will start a chain reaction of nobody needing to be there. Oh, but doesn't South Korea need us? First of all, South Korea isn't paying taxes to the US (the opposite actually, but that's another issue), and South Korea has four advantages over North Korea: Population, Wealth, Technology, and Food.

Without our threatening them, they might be able to get their own sticks out of their own asses. Kim and Castro endured as they did because they could credibly say "we have an outside opponent, you need brave fearless me as a leader to stand up to them for you." If they really are as insane as our rhetoric says they are, their immediate neighbors have more of an interest in taking care of it. If we say to them "whatever, we're not going to threaten you anymore" they will have no reason to threaten us. China is supposed to be an ally of North Korea, make it their problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was stationed in South Korea for a year. From what I saw, the best plan is to pack up, go home, forget about North Korea, tell everyone that what they do with North Korea is their own business, that we don't care.

As a member of the military I was supposed to be protecting the US. From what I personally saw, the Air Force is protecting the Army, the Army is protecting the Marines, and the Marines are protecting the Air Force. Take any one of them out, and the next would lose their need to be there, and that will start a chain reaction of nobody needing to be there. Oh, but doesn't South Korea need us? First of all, South Korea isn't paying taxes to the US (the opposite actually, but that's another issue), and South Korea has four advantages over North Korea: Population, Wealth, Technology, and Food.

Without our threatening them, they might be able to get their own sticks out of their own asses. Kim and Castro endured as they did because they could credibly say "we have an outside opponent, you need brave fearless me as a leader to stand up to them for you." If they really are as insane as our rhetoric says they are, their immediate neighbors have more of an interest in taking care of it. If we say to them "whatever, we're not going to threaten you anymore" they will have no reason to threaten us. China is supposed to be an ally of North Korea, make it their problem.

The thing is without our presence North Korea could quickly storm south and capture several million SK citizens to use as hostages. The SK government would cave. They aren't realistically capable of defending themselves due to the geography.

 

[braces_for_impact]

What's awful about North Korea is the fallout if the regime fails. Even if the regime failed without a shot the situation would be catastrophic. It would make the Syrian refugee problem look like tinker time.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was stationed in South Korea for a year. From what I saw, the best plan is to pack up, go home, forget about North Korea, tell everyone that what they do with North Korea is their own business, that we don't care.

As a member of the military I was supposed to be protecting the US. From what I personally saw, the Air Force is protecting the Army, the Army is protecting the Marines, and the Marines are protecting the Air Force. Take any one of them out, and the next would lose their need to be there, and that will start a chain reaction of nobody needing to be there. Oh, but doesn't South Korea need us? First of all, South Korea isn't paying taxes to the US (the opposite actually, but that's another issue), and South Korea has four advantages over North Korea: Population, Wealth, Technology, and Food.

Without our threatening them, they might be able to get their own sticks out of their own asses. Kim and Castro endured as they did because they could credibly say "we have an outside opponent, you need brave fearless me as a leader to stand up to them for you." If they really are as insane as our rhetoric says they are, their immediate neighbors have more of an interest in taking care of it. If we say to them "whatever, we're not going to threaten you anymore" they will have no reason to threaten us. China is supposed to be an ally of North Korea, make it their problem.

The thing is without our presence North Korea could quickly storm south and capture several million SK citizens to use as hostages. The SK government would cave. They aren't realistically capable of defending themselves due to the geography.

Really?

South Korea has four advantages over North Korea: population, money, technology, and food. Plus although China is allied to North Korea, China is a trade partner with South Korea. And you think that after 60 years the South Korean government is honestly that shaky? You think they government is as uncertain as when the Korean War ended 60 years ago?

Is there any country out there that can survive without US intervention?

Also, why should we care that SK would fall if NK invades? If they are as weak as you say they are (and they aren't) then isn't propping them up until they don't need us a fools quest?

 

[zorq]

The thing is without our presence North Korea could quickly storm south and capture several million SK citizens to use as hostages. The SK government would cave. They aren't realistically capable of defending themselves due to the geography.

As it is N. Korea already holds about a third of the population of S. Korea hostage as they have enough conventional weapons aimed at cities near the DMV to obliterate a huge chunk of S. Korea in a surprise attack.

Really?

South Korea has four advantages over North Korea: population, money, technology, and food. Plus although China is allied to North Korea, China is a trade partner with South Korea. And you think that after 60 years the South Korean government is honestly that shaky? You think they government is as uncertain as when the Korean War ended 60 years ago?

Is there any country out there that can survive without US intervention?

Also, why should we care that SK would fall if NK invades? If they are as weak as you say they are (and they aren't) then isn't propping them up until they don't need us a fools quest?

Your call us disregard for human life is noted. If you could pay $1 a month to postpone the death of one innocent individual, would you consider doing it? Would you consider doing it for the rest of your life guaranteeing the life of that innocent?

That is a very sloppy analogy but whatever. The point is that our presence in S. Korea does have a positive effect. For 60 years it has prevented/delayed a resurgence of the war. The money we spend isn't wasted. It buys the lives of countless innocent civilians every year. Packing up and going home means abandoning what is probably the US's closest ally (even though most Americans don't realize it) and the 11th largest economy in the world. Have you considered what sort of message that would send to the US's other allies?

Have you even considered the selfish economic ramifications on the US of losing S.Korea as a trading partner? (Not that this even matters compared to the loss of life in the event of a war, but I know how mercenary you can be) Ever heard of Samsung? Ever heard of Kia or Hyundai or hundreds of other Korean products? The 30,000 troops and Bases we have there are likely more than paid for by the taxes generated from the economic stimulation we get from trading with Korea.

In conclusion, whether S Korea could handle N. Korea without the help of the U.S. is largely moot compared to ensuing humanitarian crisis of any war on the Korean Peninsula.

 

[Will Wiley]

I was stationed in South Korea for a year. From what I saw, the best plan is to pack up, go home, forget about North Korea, tell everyone that what they do with North Korea is their own business, that we don't care.

As a member of the military I was supposed to be protecting the US. From what I personally saw, the Air Force is protecting the Army, the Army is protecting the Marines, and the Marines are protecting the Air Force. Take any one of them out, and the next would lose their need to be there, and that will start a chain reaction of nobody needing to be there. Oh, but doesn't South Korea need us? First of all, South Korea isn't paying taxes to the US (the opposite actually, but that's another issue), and South Korea has four advantages over North Korea: Population, Wealth, Technology, and Food.

Without our threatening them, they might be able to get their own sticks out of their own asses. Kim and Castro endured as they did because they could credibly say "we have an outside opponent, you need brave fearless me as a leader to stand up to them for you." If they really are as insane as our rhetoric says they are, their immediate neighbors have more of an interest in taking care of it. If we say to them "whatever, we're not going to threaten you anymore" they will have no reason to threaten us. China is supposed to be an ally of North Korea, make it their problem.

The thing is without our presence North Korea could quickly storm south and capture several million SK citizens to use as hostages. The SK government would cave. They aren't realistically capable of defending themselves due to the geography.

Before you go to bed tonight, remember to look under you bed to make sure there are no monsters hiding there

 

[Will Wiley]

As it is N. Korea already holds about a third of the population of S. Korea hostage as they have enough conventional weapons aimed at cities near the DMV to obliterate a huge chunk of S. Korea in a surprise attack.

Really?

South Korea has four advantages over North Korea: population, money, technology, and food. Plus although China is allied to North Korea, China is a trade partner with South Korea. And you think that after 60 years the South Korean government is honestly that shaky? You think they government is as uncertain as when the Korean War ended 60 years ago?

Is there any country out there that can survive without US intervention?

Also, why should we care that SK would fall if NK invades? If they are as weak as you say they are (and they aren't) then isn't propping them up until they don't need us a fools quest?

Your call us disregard for human life is noted. If you could pay $1 a month to postpone the death of one innocent individual, would you consider doing it? Would you consider doing it for the rest of your life guaranteeing the life of that innocent?

That is a very sloppy analogy but whatever. The point is that our presence in S. Korea does have a positive effect. For 60 years it has prevented/delayed a resurgence of the war. The money we spend isn't wasted. It buys the lives of countless innocent civilians every year. Packing up and going home means abandoning what is probably the US's closest ally (even though most Americans don't realize it) and the 11th largest economy in the world. Have you considered what sort of message that would send to the US's other allies?

Have you even considered the selfish economic ramifications on the US of losing S.Korea as a trading partner? (Not that this even matters compared to the loss of life in the event of a war, but I know how mercenary you can be) Ever heard of Samsung? Ever heard of Kia or Hyundai or hundreds of other Korean products? The 30,000 troops and Bases we have there are likely more than paid for by the taxes generated from the economic stimulation we get from trading with Korea.

In conclusion, whether S Korea could handle N. Korea without the help of the U.S. is largely moot compared to ensuing humanitarian crisis of any war on the Korean Peninsula.

The US military's presence around the globe has caused more deaths that any other party.
And it has bankrupted America. I hope you aren't counting on getting a pension one day.

 

[zorq]

The US military's presence around the globe has caused more deaths that any other party.
And it has bankrupted America. I hope you aren't counting on getting a pension one day.

... First of all, while the number of deaths caused by the US's poor judgement is in the millions, the number of lives saved is likely also in the millions. You can choose to look at only one side of the ledger, but that is a little intellectualy dishonest, don't you think?

Secondly, America isn't bankrupt. Really, it isn't. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Thirdly, your response doesn't actually address anything you quoted. Stay on topic and tell me how I am wrong about Korea, not some exterraneous BS about Iraq or Mexico or something.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your call us disregard for human life is noted. If you could pay $1 a month to postpone the death of one innocent individual, would you consider doing it? Would you consider doing it for the rest of your life guaranteeing the life of that innocent?

That is a very sloppy analogy but whatever. The point is that our presence in S. Korea does have a positive effect. For 60 years it has prevented/delayed a resurgence of the war. The money we spend isn't wasted. It buys the lives of countless innocent civilians every year. Packing up and going home means abandoning what is probably the US's closest ally (even though most Americans don't realize it) and the 11th largest economy in the world. Have you considered what sort of message that would send to the US's other allies?

Have you even considered the selfish economic ramifications on the US of losing S.Korea as a trading partner? (Not that this even matters compared to the loss of life in the event of a war, but I know how mercenary you can be) Ever heard of Samsung? Ever heard of Kia or Hyundai or hundreds of other Korean products? The 30,000 troops and Bases we have there are likely more than paid for by the taxes generated from the economic stimulation we get from trading with Korea.

In conclusion, whether S Korea could handle N. Korea without the help of the U.S. is largely moot compared to ensuing humanitarian crisis of any war on the Korean Peninsula.

It is an absurdly sloppy analogy. Go join the South Korean army if it matters that much to you.

So, you say that if the US isn't spending resources on every conflict all over the globe, that is a callous disregard for life. Well, technically one could say that. Far better we spend our own lives and interfere when one person not us is threatening another person not us. Their lives matter, our lives don't, right? And you say *I* have a callous disregard for human life?

The job of the US military is to protect the US. The job of the South Korean military is to protect South Korea. The job of the Elbonian military is to protect Elbonia. The job of the military of country X is to protect country X. It is not the job of any of those militaries to do humanitarian missions around the world dying to protect others from themselves. And you say *I* have a callous disregard for human life? What is the life of a member of the US military worth to you?

And, just suppose Monarch Kim gets lucky. Suppose he somehow actually does get a working nuclear missile and launches it at a US city. He is doing so because of the US presence and interference in Korean affairs. The deaths of all those US citizens is surely a small price to pay. It's not like US lives should matter to the US government. And you say *I* have a callous disregard for human life.

If it really means that much, there is one solution that actually makes sense - annex South Korea. Then their lives won't matter any more to you.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Not sure if it has been discussed yet, but the true danger of an aggressive North Korea is to lead to a regional arms race. The world is not a better place if Japan, South Korea, Guam and everyone else starts developing nukes to protect themselves from the Dear Leader.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Not sure if it has been discussed yet, but the true danger of an aggressive North Korea is to lead to a regional arms race. The world is not a better place if Japan, South Korea, Guam and everyone else starts developing nukes to protect themselves from the Dear Leader.

Guam is an American dependency in Micronesia. You might say it already HAS nukes.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Harry Bosch]

Not sure if it has been discussed yet, but the true danger of an aggressive North Korea is to lead to a regional arms race. The world is not a better place if Japan, South Korea, Guam and everyone else starts developing nukes to protect themselves from the Dear Leader.

Guam is an American dependency in Micronesia. You might say it already HAS nukes.

Eldarion Lathria

Obviously I was making a joke about Guam!

 

[Will Wiley]

The US military's presence around the globe has caused more deaths that any other party.
And it has bankrupted America. I hope you aren't counting on getting a pension one day.

... First of all, while the number of deaths caused by the US's poor judgement is in the millions, the number of lives saved is likely also in the millions. You can choose to look at only one side of the ledger, but that is a little intellectualy dishonest, don't you think?

You have been intellectually dishonest. You compared real deaths with your fantasy about the imaginary help you provided.
You only supplied one side of the ledger.

Secondly, America isn't bankrupt. Really, it isn't. Where do you come up with this stuff?

The fiscal gap is over $200 trillion. I hope you aren't hoping you'll be looked after

 

[zorq]

Your call us disregard for human life is noted. If you could pay $1 a month to postpone the death of one innocent individual, would you consider doing it? Would you consider doing it for the rest of your life guaranteeing the life of that innocent?

That is a very sloppy analogy but whatever. The point is that our presence in S. Korea does have a positive effect. For 60 years it has prevented/delayed a resurgence of the war. The money we spend isn't wasted. It buys the lives of countless innocent civilians every year. Packing up and going home means abandoning what is probably the US's closest ally (even though most Americans don't realize it) and the 11th largest economy in the world. Have you considered what sort of message that would send to the US's other allies?

Have you even considered the selfish economic ramifications on the US of losing S.Korea as a trading partner? (Not that this even matters compared to the loss of life in the event of a war, but I know how mercenary you can be) Ever heard of Samsung? Ever heard of Kia or Hyundai or hundreds of other Korean products? The 30,000 troops and Bases we have there are likely more than paid for by the taxes generated from the economic stimulation we get from trading with Korea.

In conclusion, whether S Korea could handle N. Korea without the help of the U.S. is largely moot compared to ensuing humanitarian crisis of any war on the Korean Peninsula.

It is an absurdly sloppy analogy. Go join the South Korean army if it matters that much to you.

So, you say that if the US isn't spending resources on every conflict all over the globe, that is a callous disregard for life. Well, technically one could say that. Far better we spend our own lives than interfere when one person not us is threatening another person not us. Their lives matter, our lives don't, right? And you say *I* have a callous disregard for human life?

You are losing focus. Do you deny that the US presence in S. Korea has delayed the end of the armistice for more than 60 years? What has been the US casualty rate of US personel in S. Korea during this period? ... a dozen or so soldiers from an all volunteer army?

The job of the US military is to protect the US. The job of the South Korean military is to protect South Korea. The job of the Elbonian military is to protect Elbonia. The job of the military of country X is to protect country X. It is not the job of any of those militaries to do humanitarian missions around the world dying to protect others from themselves. And you say *I* have a callous disregard for human life? What is the life of a member of the US military worth to you?

The duty of an alliance member is to come to the aid of those they are allied to. Do you understand the concept of Alliance? We are all stronger when we stand together. It sounds like you would have us abandon all allies as soon as they become inconvenient. Weakening the the US both economically and militarily.

And, just suppose Monarch Kim gets lucky. Suppose he somehow actually does get a working nuclear missile and launches it at a US city. He is doing so because of the US presence and interference in Korean affairs.

Oh by all means we should bend over and appease every tyrant and dictator. They surely won't have any more nefarious plans after we give them exactly what they want *this time*.

The deaths of all those US citizens is surely a small price to pay. It's not like US lives should matter to the US government. And you say *I* have a callous disregard for human life.

If it really means that much, there is one solution that actually makes sense - annex South Korea. Then their lives won't matter any more to you.

Can't you value the lives of everyone? Or are those foreign lives trash to be discarded at a whim?

As for the US's role as the target of N. Korean hatred... The US inherited it's role as the Boogeyman of N. Korea following the Korean War. This is a scapegoat role that must be filled to explain every shortcoming the populus suffers. Even if the U.S. had handed over S. Korea 60 years ago, the US would likely still be their great Satan

 

[LordKiran]

Bottom line: North Korea is just a proxy for China and we should all remember that. The question is who will break first, China or the USA? Neither stands to benefit from a war, even the winner still loses, so will China's leadership come to a point where NK is no longer worth the risk to their own people? (A far larger, richer nation) We know the US wont abandon SK, so at this point it all hinges on China.

 

[zorq]

... First of all, while the number of deaths caused by the US's poor judgement is in the millions, the number of lives saved is likely also in the millions. You can choose to look at only one side of the ledger, but that is a little intellectualy dishonest, don't you think?

You have been intellectually dishonest. You compared real deaths with your fantasy about the imaginary help you provided.

Please, go on believing that the US has never helped ANYONE EVER. Your blindness is made blatant when we scrutinize your next sentence.

You only supplied one side of the ledger.

How many groups did I describe as numbering in the millions again?

Secondly, America isn't bankrupt. Really, it isn't. Where do you come up with this stuff?

The fiscal gap is over $200 trillion. I hope you aren't hoping you'll be looked after

I can take care of myself, thanks. Before you respond again, why don't you look up the definition for the word "bankrupt."

Any comment on Korea or did you just stop by for an OT bashing of the US?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Can't you value the lives of everyone? Or are those foreign lives trash to be discarded at a whim?

As for the US's role as the target of N. Korean hatred... The US inherited it's role as the Boogeyman of N. Korea following the Korean War. This is a scapegoat role that must be filled to explain every shortcoming the populus suffers. Even if the U.S. had handed over S. Korea 60 years ago, the US would likely still be their great Satan

Caring for the lives of everyone doesn't obligate the US to military support. Your "caring" is to allow the deaths of US soldiers willy nilly without cost because they are dying for someone else. Let me guess, if they die for their country that's selfish and not worthy of any sort of praise but if they die for another country that's honorable and worthy of praise. Anything you do for yourself is bad anything you do for others is good. That they are serving a greater group by being in the military is good, but not good enough because they might die for their country instead of for complete strangers.

Caring about them doesn't mean it is my job to throw away my life. Caring about them doesn't mean being stupid about caring about them. If it really honestly means that much to you, well, I'd say "go join the South Korean military" but now I know that you shouldn't do that because for whatever reason you feel they are more important. Therefore dying for them makes you as selfish as if a US soldier dies for the US.

It is the job of the US military to protect the US. That doesn't mean foreign lives are trash, except for you who thinks they have higher value than our own instead of equal value. It is the job of the US military to defend the US. It is not the job of the US military to defend anyone other than the US. Yes, it is exceedingly selfish to have any self interest and not be completely selfless. What the US really should do is protect and defend countries that absolutely hate us, and switch our military alliance away from South Korea and to North Korea so that we can be selfless enough to satisfy you.

 

[zorq]

Can't you value the lives of everyone? Or are those foreign lives trash to be discarded at a whim?

As for the US's role as the target of N. Korean hatred... The US inherited it's role as the Boogeyman of N. Korea following the Korean War. This is a scapegoat role that must be filled to explain every shortcoming the populus suffers. Even if the U.S. had handed over S. Korea 60 years ago, the US would likely still be their great Satan

Caring for the lives of everyone doesn't obligate the US to military support. Your "caring" is to allow the deaths of US soldiers willy nilly without cost because they are dying for someone else. Let me guess, if they die for their country that's selfish and not worthy of any sort of praise but if they die for another country that's honorable and worthy of praise. Anything you do for yourself is bad anything you do for others is good. That they are serving a greater group by being in the military is good, but not good enough because they might die for their country instead of for complete strangers.

Caring about them doesn't mean it is my job to throw away my life. Caring about them doesn't mean being stupid about caring about them. If it really honestly means that much to you, well, I'd say "go join the South Korean military" but now I know that you shouldn't do that because for whatever reason you feel they are more important. Therefore dying for them makes you as selfish as if a US soldier dies for the US.

It is the job of the US military to protect the US. That doesn't mean foreign lives are trash, except for you who thinks they have higher value than our own instead of equal value. It is the job of the US military to defend the US. It is not the job of the US military to defend anyone other than the US. Yes, it is exceedingly selfish to have any self interest and not be completely selfless. What the US really should do is protect and defend countries that absolutely hate us, and switch our military alliance away from South Korea and to North Korea so that we can be selfless enough to satisfy you.

I don't know why I bother responding to you. You seem to be having a conversation with yourself. Of course if you stopped putting words in my mouth that I have never expressed you might have to address what I actually wrote.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is without our presence North Korea could quickly storm south and capture several million SK citizens to use as hostages. The SK government would cave. They aren't realistically capable of defending themselves due to the geography.

Really?

South Korea has four advantages over North Korea: population, money, technology, and food. Plus although China is allied to North Korea, China is a trade partner with South Korea. And you think that after 60 years the South Korean government is honestly that shaky? You think they government is as uncertain as when the Korean War ended 60 years ago?

Think any democracy could survive sacrificing that many of it's citizens??

Is there any country out there that can survive without US intervention?

Also, why should we care that SK would fall if NK invades? If they are as weak as you say they are (and they aren't) then isn't propping them up until they don't need us a fools quest?

The problem is geography. They can't defend themselves other than by moving Seoul.