Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why doesn't the US invade North Korea

Options
  • 15-02-2012 4:46pm
    #1
    RiseToTheTop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭


    With all this talk about countries having nuclear weapons a valid reason for invading, North Korea more than likely has some.

    Plus with the government letting the country starve to death, people having to make food out of tree bark in the countryside. IMO North Korea should be the next country to be invaded if the US do invade.

    Damn China! The US is much more valuable to China than North Korea, which i'm assuming has no economic value to the world market.


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    US hypocrisy is exposed in similar regard with Saudi Arabia, Israel or, for example, Bahrain. Only those of exceptionally low IQ don't see such hypocrisy.


  • Options
    #3
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Seoul, the capitial of South Korea.
    This is within range of the massed ranks of the North's artillary pieces.
    Any invasion of the North would reduce it to rubble, with the ensuing civilian fatalities. Hence the South will not open hostilities.


  • Options
    #4
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Are you aware of what nuclear weapons actually do ?


  • Options
    #5
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    The fact that North Korea has one (and perhaps more than one) nuclear weapon would be the main deterrent surely? Why the eagerness to find new wars for the Americans to fight OP?


  • Options
    #6
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Lets hope one day they strike oil so the north Koreans can be at last "free".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Sigh. it has nothing to do with hypocrisy, it has everything to do with cold hard reality.

    Simply put, North Korea would be a very difficult country to invade.

    1. It has a border area that makes the Siegfried Line look like a kids playground. It would need massive artillery and air bombardment to neutralise parts of it.

    2. It has one of the most militarised populations in the world, even when you did punch through the border zone, guerilla activity would be rife.

    3. North Korea has massive amounts of artillery and rockets and hilly wooded countryside conducive to camouflaging it, any invader would take a lot of casualties.

    4. Most importantly of all, North Korea is a Chinese client state, they just wouldn't stand for it.


  • Options
    #8
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    Oh, so now humanitarian bombing/'aid'/freedumb-invasions are only carried out if the Country in question isn't capable of defending itself? So, to hell with North Koreans under poverty?

    Laughable.


  • Options
    #9
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    There would be little or no (domestic or international) support for such an action.

    An out of the blue attack would still make the US the aggressor and thus the initiator of the conflict (remember Iraq '03) The US would most likely have to attack unilaterally as few or no other countries would support such an action.

    North Korea has a large standing army, indications that it has developed nuclear weapons, possible biological/chemical weapons, powerful military rule, in constant preparedness for an attack.

    Potential for much wider regional consequences, refugees, etc.

    Geographically complex, terrain difficult, etc, etc.


    The Kim dynasty can do what it wants with the North Korean people and there is little the US (or the world) can do about that situation, except pressure and diplomacy. The development of nuclear weapons has solidified that family's rule for the next few generations at least.
    Internal dissent is the only factor that could change it, but they seem to have that well under control with generous doses of brainwashing and gulags.


  • Options
    #10
    Chavways
    Registered Users Posts: 1,905 ✭✭✭Chavways


    No oil


  • Options
    #11
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    Chavways wrote: »
    No oil

    Conspiracy theorist!! :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    RiseToTheTop wrote: »
    IMO North Korea should be the next country to be invaded if the US do invade.

    well, it didn't work out too well for them last time they invaded Korea did it? and they didn't even have nukes then





    PS 5,000 Posts!!


  • Options
    #13
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    Riskymove wrote: »
    well, it didn't work out too well for them last time they invaded Korea did it? and they didn't even have nukes then





    PS 5,000 Posts!!

    But y'see todays US technology and the US Airforce could defeat them in 2 hours.


  • Options
    #14
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Oh, so now humanitarian bombing/'aid'/freedumb-invasions are only carried out if the Country in question isn't capable of defending itself? So, to hell with North Koreans under poverty?

    Laughable.

    So now you WANT North Korea to be invaded?


  • Options
    #15
    timesnap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    It certainly won't happen under Obama,one of his senior advisers(his chief of staff) a guy by the name of Rahm Emanule has written a book about the two years he spent in the Obama administration,he claims that Barack said almost every day how much he resents the two wars and the economy he inherited from Bush.

    Obama is not fully understood imo in that he would much prefer to concentrate on his domestic problems.

    Just a few hours ago Sky was showing Iranian tv showing off its own built nuclear rods being placed into its reactor.

    Israel has said it will only give 7 hours warning to the US before it strikes Iran(i doubt they will even do that)
    looks to be building up to an anybody but Obama in the WH by many forces.

    even the most hawkish of US politicians are wary of North Korea because its leaders were deemed too crazy to try and reason with and throwing some money at its blackmail tactics was the safest option.


  • Options
    #16
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    So now you WANT North Korea to be invaded?

    Whoosh. That wasn't my point. Are freedumb bombs dropped on the basis of the strength of the persecutors?


  • Options
    #17
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    The quality of responses on this and other similar threads is taking a bit of a nosedive tbh. Certain posters would need to shape up or sadly action will have to be taken.

    Cheers

    DrG


  • Options
    #18
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    RiseToTheTop wrote: »
    With all this talk about countries having nuclear weapons a valid reason for invading, North Korea more than likely has some.

    Talk about countries having nuclear weapons is not a valid reason for anything. The USA has them, and the abomination that it supports in the Middle East, the rogue state that calls itself Israel and occupies the land of Palestine, has hundreds of nuclear warheads, something that doesn't seem to bother the Americans, but should. And you'd have to be pretty naive, given their history of atrocities and genocide, to think they have them just for fun.:rolleyes:

    North Korea certainly has some, and I think that answers your question about why the USA does not invade. At least, it is one of several good reasons.
    RiseToTheTop wrote: »
    Plus with the government letting the country starve to death, people having to make food out of tree bark in the countryside. IMO North Korea should be the next country to be invaded if the US do invade.

    North Korea is far from the only country in the world where famine has afflicted the population. In many cases, there would have been little or no opposition to an intervention by the USA (or other western countries) to feed the starving people, but that has not happened. In fact, if the USA began supporting trade policies that would help billions of people in the Third World and stopped supporting dictatorial regimes that brutally oppress and exploit their own people, there would be fewer famines anyway.
    RiseToTheTop wrote: »
    Damn China! The US is much more valuable to China than North Korea, which i'm assuming has no economic value to the world market.

    The last time the USA took on China's armed forces was in Korea, and they got a good butt-kicking. China would tolerate an American invasion of North Korea just about as enthusiastically as the USA would welcome a Chinese invasion of Canada or Mexico.:) The "American Century" is drawing to a close and the Chinese one is dawning. It's adjustment time, folks!:D

    May I recommend you do a bit of reading? I'd suggest you start with "The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli and note especially his advice that "Recognition of realities is the beginning of all wisdom.":rolleyes:


  • Options
    #19
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    The US wont be invading nor attacking North Korea anytime soon as it doesnt suit their political "imperial" intentions status quo in that region of the world. They cant predict the Chinese reaction for a start this a military with an ability to put up a proper fight. Any attack on the North may result in unification with the South and this is something US policy makers dont want to see happen anytime soon. Considering China borders Korea and because of the border the South is under US protection including a large force on Southern soil, would a unified Korea eventually fall under a Chinese sphere of influence or US? Would the South still require a large US military presence on its soil should it unify with the North? Any push toward unification which could become possible after any attack and Korea may choose not to be involved or require US military assistance anymore and ask them to leave leaving the door open for the Chinese. The US wont risk that.

    Unification would aslo weaken the US/Japanese defence arrangements with Japan deciding to do likewise through choice or having their hand forced, strenghten its own militarty probably because they have no choice and rely less on the US which in turn would weaken US influence in two key regions - Asian and Pacific ( bordering or on the doorstep of China). The US military presence/assistance in South Korea and Japan has nothing to do with either countrys "security". They are there to keep Chinese ideas of expansion southerly in check and to basically thwart it before it can even be considered. The current "arrangements" suit the US in my opinion I dont believe they want them changed.
    Attacking the North opens up a can of worms and in all likelyhood the US would lose out geographically and lose influence in a part of the world they deem crucial to US interests. For these reasons among others they wont be attacking the North anytime soon I would imagine. And Northern nuclear weapons will not be the deciding factor in any future attack should it take place. Nuclear weapons in the hands of nations not playing ball or those who seek them is the modern day fabricated Casus Belli when its not on "humanitarian" grounds or to spread "freedom".


  • Options
    #20
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    The US knows that China would not stand for it, and the US also knows that China will always be keeping an eye on North Korea. Alternatively what would happen if China invaded N Korea?


  • Options
    #21
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    North Korea is one of the most heavily militerised states in the world, they have a huge army that is heavily armed, even if its equipment is somewhat outdated, it could inflict a heavy toll on any force that would try to invade, and lets not forget that defeating the enemy army in the field is only the first step, holding the ground afterwords is a whole different issue.

    The question really is what possible reason would the US have to launch such an invasion? It would be expencive, bloody, would destablise the region for at least a decade and would probably make things worse for the people living there.

    People need to realise that the US is broke, it might have the military power to take on such a conflict, but it does not have the fiscal security to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Why should the US invade? If there are Irish people so concerned about the welfare of the North Korean population (and they would be right to be concerned), why aren't they lobbying for increased military spending in Ireland to allow us to lead an invasion to rescue the North Koreans?

    Countries act in their own interests. Ireland does, the US does, why shouldn't they? One of the faults of Irish commentary on the US is that we expect higher standards of them than we do of ourselves. More than once I have heard Irish people complain about the Irish not being allowed stay as illegal immigrants in the US while almost in the same breath they complain that we are letting in too many refugees and immigrants from Africa. The hypocrisy is stunning!


  • Options
    #23
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Riskymove wrote: »
    well, it didn't work out too well for them last time they invaded Korea did it? and they didn't even have nukes then

    PS 5,000 Posts!!

    Not much of a post for your 5,000. :rolleyes:

    The last time the US fought in Korea was the Korean war which was a war between Nth Korea/China and affectively the UN which comprised many countries and not just the US.
    It was a stalemate not a loss for the US, UN or the Chinese.

    BTW they did have nukes and it was their proposed use by UN commander in cheif one Douglas McArthur that led to the end of his military career and almost a constitutional crisis in the US where the president had intervened.

    I just love the anti US bile that surfaces here once one of these threads appear.
    I may not be a fan of US foreign policy, but dear God do some people here actually favour the regimes that they complain that the US has targetted.
    Yeah lets here it for the Taliban, the Ayatollahs, the Husseins and all the other very nice rulers that are enemies of the US.

    The US is lambasted because it does invade somewhere or use aerial power and the next week it is lambasted because it hasn't invaded or attacked someone or somewhere.

    As Godge said they do things in their country's own interest.
    You know things like protect oil supplies which they need.
    The funny thing is their politicans and leaders are berated for looking after their nation's interests and at the very same time our own are berated for not looking after our interests within the EU or with the ECB/IMF.
    I bet the very ones complaining about the US throwing it's weight around are also complaining that our government hasn't thrown it's weight around and told the other EU countries where to go ?

    Do all those anti US, (and probably anti Brits, anti West) think that the countries they favour would allow them the same freedom that they enjoy today thanks to the US, British and other Western powers ?
    I would love to see how these keyboard warriors would last in any of these countries if they spoke out of line.

    I notice some other poster drags Israel into this and complain how they have a nuclear arsenal.
    Maybe it has something to do with fact that they are surrounded and outnumbered by countries that have vowed to drive them into the sea.

    People that are complaining about Israel were probably in the past congratulating it's enemies, you know the very same countries that have had their rulers slaughtering their citizens over the last year because they looked for some freedom.

    I may not like some US policies or some of it's satelite states, but I am not fooking foolish enough to think that any of it's main enemies are an improvement.


  • Options
    #24
    timesnap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    Godge wrote: »
    Countries act in their own interests. Ireland does, the US does, why shouldn't they? One of the faults of Irish commentary on the US is that we expect higher standards of them than we do of ourselves. More than once I have heard Irish people complain about the Irish not being allowed stay as illegal immigrants in the US while almost in the same breath they complain that we are letting in too many refugees and immigrants from Africa. The hypocrisy is stunning!

    How true Godge!,but it is 'cool' to criticise America's every move for some people without examining motives other than oil.
    i hope they do not get what they wish for as they are sure to regret it.
    America has sinned,part of the reason we know so much about it is the truth will always out there in the end, unlike many of countries that people jump to defend.
    some countries 'sins' are apparently not as big as others.


  • Options
    #25
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Godge wrote: »
    Why should the US invade? If there are Irish people so concerned about the welfare of the North Korean population (and they would be right to be concerned), why aren't they lobbying for increased military spending in Ireland to allow us to lead an invasion to rescue the North Koreans?

    The US wont invade nor attack not anytime soon dont think we have to worry about that. Showing concern for the population? thats called empathy something we all possess unless youre a headcase Im speaking in general terms thats not directed at you:). According to the EU since 1990 and they stated this as fact, some 4 million people (pre 2003) have died as a result of wars 90% of them civillian. Personally I dont believe that figure is correct as Ive looked into it I would be more inclined to put it around the 60% mark but even at that its still a shocking brutal number of innocent people losing their lives at the whim of some coward politician/s and their flight of fancy. As for long term injury / illness its nearly impossible to get anything close to a reliant figure for that. Of course the North Korean regime are not good for their people but how does invading/bombing/killing help the situation? Apart from stepping on the toes of a nuclear power how does that improve the situation?

    Which is more "appealing" - not having enough food and living under a reclusive government or having a foreign pilot in his foreign fighter jet dropping a 2000 pound bomb on your head killling you and your family? Surely you can see the irony in your asking/suggesting petition for invasion ( mass death and bombing ) to improve a situation for the average person. In war its always the innocent that suffer thats how war works the average person on the street always lose out a lot of the time they pay with their lives.
    Countries act in their own interests. Ireland does, the US does, why shouldn't they?

    All countries act in their own interest its a fact of life. Do we ( Ireland ) parade around the globe invading countries causing mayhem and generally destroying nations to "build" them back up? The US have every right to look after their own interests. They have no right to lie, steal, invade, kill and maim to achieve this.
    One of the faults of Irish commentary on the US is that we expect higher standards of them than we do of ourselves.

    They have decided to "police" the "free" world this has not been bestowed upon them. Put yourself up on a pedastal like that human nature dictates closer scrutiny & expectations.


  • Options
    #26
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    jmayo wrote: »
    Do all those anti US, (and probably anti Brits, anti West) think that the countries they favour would allow them the same freedom that they enjoy today thanks to the US, British and other Western powers ?

    Im assuming, correct me if im wrong:), the above quote refers to Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. ( Taliban, Ayatollahs and Husseins??) Im wondering how the above countries could come to be in control of the freedoms I enjoy today? On a personal level I have no time for any of the above regimes but im interested to know how you figure they might come or might have come to be in a position to influence my life?? Do does this make it ok in your mind for innocent people to die as these are apparently the enemies of the countries we should be so "grateful" too for giving us "freedom"? You can look out for a nations people without liking or agreeing with the government of that nation the two dont go hand in hand. You can be anti-war without being anti-country or anti-people is that really so hard to understand?


  • Options
    #27
    al28283
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭al28283


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    But y'see todays US technology and the US Airforce could defeat them in 2 hours.

    earlier posts have already pointed that they couldn't


  • Options
    #28
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    timesnap wrote: »
    How true Godge!,but it is 'cool' to criticise America's every move for some people without examining motives other than oil.
    i hope they do not get what they wish for as they are sure to regret it.
    America has sinned,part of the reason we know so much about it is the truth will always out there in the end, unlike many of countries that people jump to defend.
    some countries 'sins' are apparently not as big as others.

    Shall we examine these motives you speak of other than oil? perhaps that's for a different thread:) I find it incredibly bizzare that even after the US and coalition of the willing were shown to be murdering liars, people are still being berated for speaking out against the US/NATO killing machine in its past present and future incarnation/s I really do.


  • Options
    #29
    doomed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 491 ✭✭doomed


    RiseToTheTop wrote: »
    With all this talk about countries having nuclear weapons a valid reason for invading, North Korea more than likely has some.

    Plus with the government letting the country starve to death, people having to make food out of tree bark in the countryside. IMO North Korea should be the next country to be invaded if the US do invade.

    Damn China! The US is much more valuable to China than North Korea, which i'm assuming has no economic value to the world market.


    Who told you having nuclear weapons was a reason for invading? You invade countries that don't have them. If they had them they might fire one at you. Have you seen the bang they make?


  • Options
    #30
    al28283
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭al28283


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Whoosh. That wasn't my point. Are freedumb bombs dropped on the basis of the strength of the persecutors?

    It's based on a number of things, one of the main ones being relations with other countries. The US knows that that if they attacked NK then China, and possibly even Russia might get involved.

    In other cases, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc, the US had already talked with neighbouring nations and assessed the situation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    They have the BOMB OP;)


Advertisement