Why doesn't the US invade North Korea

RiseToTheTop

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.

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.

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.

opinion guy

Are you aware of what nuclear weapons actually do ?

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?

RichieC

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

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.

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.

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.

Chavways

No oil

Border-Rat

Chavways wrote: »

No oil

Conspiracy theorist!! :mad:

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!!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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:

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".

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

imme

They have the BOMB OP;)

Manic Moran

The nice thing about DPRK is that they really aren't in a position to affect very much. They aren't going to stop the regional export of rice, for example, nor can they really destabilise a fairly stable region. Further, any country that they might take a crack at, such as RoK or Japan are both extremely capable on their own bat, and with US support the result would be a foregone conclusion.

Basically, in addition to the issues of simply having a really, really big military, DPRK is already pretty contained.

NTM

alandublin33

the reason is north Korea has the second largest army in the world plus plenty of those nuclear things plus it would annoy China a bit too , and if that happened we could all say bye now! and me you , everyone else and everything would no longer exist , even boards would be gone!

Zombrex

North Korea has a massive army with technology supplied by the USSR and China. This technology has dated in recent years abut all N.K did was replace that with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and they ain't following standards of how they should be used.

The idea that America could just walk into the country is frankly laughable. They would probably have better luck invading China, China at least would be less likely to set nukes off in their own country.

Solair

1) It has no oil
2) It has no oil
3) It has no oil
4) It would REALLY make the Chinese VERY angry.

The popular Chinese hobby of "North Korea Gawking" is keeping a close eye on it.
There's now a significant industry involving looking at North Korea through telescopes, binoculars and long-lens cameras!

Zombrex

Solair wrote: »

1) It has no oil
2) It has no oil
3) It has no oil
4) It would REALLY make the Chinese VERY angry.

I think you mean

1) They would lose
2) They would lose
3) They would lose
4) It would REALLY make the Chinese VERY angry.

Solair

But, basically it has no oil, it has no control over oil and it has nothing the US particularly has any interests in.

It's more of a problem for China and South Korea.

China will more than likely keep NK in check anyway as it has absolutely no intention of having any wars or nuclear bombs going off on its door step.

I get the impression China just sees NK as a bit annoying. If it does anything to undermine China's interests, you can be sure it will deal with it.

Bear in mind that China controls most of NK's energy supplies.

Zombrex

Solair wrote: »

But, basically it has no oil, it has no control over oil and it has nothing the US particularly has any interests in.

It's more of a problem for China and South Korea.

It is some what of a myth that America fights wars over oil. Gets the CIA to mess around in the country, maybe over throw the government sure. But that is relatively cheap. A war on the other hand isn't. The economics don't stand up when you look at the cost of an actual war.

America would love to take out North Korea if it could, it has nukes that some day could reach the western sea board of the USA.

But it knows it cannot. The NK army is too large, the most the US could hope for is stealth bombing runs to knock out key infrastructure.

Manach

I'd disagree with here. The US has experience winning against mass armies using Soviet era arms and doctrine. For instance in Iraq.
It also has a excellent combined arms force, that is literally best in the world.
Saying that, the US seems incapable of winning the peace - creating a stable nation post invasion. Besides given how much debt the US owes the Chinese, they could not afford a war.

vard

Mutually Assured Destruction.

RandomName2

Border-Rat wrote: »

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

ffs by that stage Seoul would be leveled.

Ah, I suppose it doesn't matter, I'm pretty sure that you are just posting as a US bashing exercise in the first place.

RiseToTheTop

It's amazing how China just stand by while North Korea lets it's civilians starve to death. In the late 90's an estimated 2-3 million North Korean citizens perished, all the while the Kim-Il Sungs and Kim Jong-Il's have giant statues of them put up in Pyongang, they show themselves as Gods.

An earlier post in this thread compared the US invading North Korea to China invading Canada or Mexico. I'm sorry, but i'd like to think that if Mexico or Canada was having a famine, and this famine was happening because of the dictatorship, the US would do something about it. Plus i'd say they would.

I'm sorry, but nothing would satisfy me more than having the Kim family getting blown out of the water. Leave the statues unscathed by the bombs so the people can tear them down and piss on them :mad:

nacho libre

to paraphrase Dick Cheney in an interview:
You don't enter wars where the military cost is going to be politically unsustainable. For all his lies, he was telling the truth on that occasion.

RichieC

Manic Moran wrote: »

The nice thing about DPRK is that they really aren't in a position to affect very much. They aren't going to stop the regional export of rice, for example, nor can they really destabilise a fairly stable region. Further, any country that they might take a crack at, such as RoK or Japan are both extremely capable on their own bat, and with US support the result would be a foregone conclusion.

Basically, in addition to the issues of simply having a really, really big military, DPRK is already pretty contained.

NTM

People should bare this in mind when "human rights abuses" are cited against Iran.

KIERAN1

Economically, South Korea is a wealthy nation and can supports their people without the need of foreign assistance. South Korea is also an independent state and westernised due to American influence in the region. Any attack on North Korea by the United States would be seen as been akin to madness without provocation. A serious clash or war between South and North Korea would undoubtedly setback the South Korean economy for tens of years and cause rapid high fluctuations to the worlds markets.

North Korea army is not well-equipped most of the technology they have is early 60's What they do have is missiles and rockets more then enough to wreck havoc on South Korea's cities towns and villages thus inflicting thousands of casualties, civilian and military, on South Korea.

There also has been since 27 July 1953, been an armistice agreement adhered to by North and South Korea. Any serious attack on North Korea would end this agreement immediately. America, has been there and done that with the Korean war, that conflict did not end too well in the end for the United States. So another conflict in that region isn't likely to happen any time soon unless provoked by the other side. Also North Korea allegedly has "Nuclear" weapons how many and how usable they are is anyone's estimation. But an Invasion of North Korea the regime has nothing to lose then so it might use them if things go really bad?

And lastly any invasion or air attack on North Korea would not please the Chinese. The last time American forces entered North Korea the Chinese took the calculated risk of supporting North Korea and the regime then. The Chinese engaged and eventually successfully pushed back the UN forces who then were under the leadership of the United States military from North Korea. The Chinese forces did all this with a force of 190.000, but they were ill-equipped and had less weaponry to their United States counterparts. The Chinese military while still behind the United States military with weaponry, military hardware and technology today. Its advanced enough still to win a conventional war if the situation arose. But a non-limited war between one superpower and emerging superpower mostly likely will lead to use of Nuclear Weapons if military frustration sets in.

Mr.Micro

nacho libre wrote: »

to paraphrase Dick Cheney in an interview:
You don't enter wars where the military cost is going to be politically unsustainable. For all his lies, he was telling the truth on that occasion.

He must have not been well that day.:D

Eggy Baby!

The main reason is that China does not want tens of millions of North Korean refugees fleeing across its border. That's why it provides free electricity and so forth to them to prevent the country from collapsing.

Plus, in a war, North Korea would certainly not be a pushover. And the PR of such a war would be catastrophic, no matter how good the American spin doctors wind this one up.

OP-There are many, many reasons why the US wouldn't attack North Korea, but i'd say the main reason is the fact that if the conditions necessary for it to happen were to occur, it would be a ready-made recepie for world war 3. America's military, logistical, and political allies, which it would need to wage such a campaign, just wouldn't go for it.

America is currently stony broke and probably couldn't afford to finance such a war now without logistical and financial support from China (one of their largest trade partners AND creditors) and military and naval support from the EU allies, especially Britain and it's fleet of Nuclear subs.

Firstly, the EU is not exactly flush with spare cash at the moment, and its still smarting politically from the PR disaster that was the Iraq war. European leaders would be very unlikely to agree to support such a move in any great measure, even if the justification for invasion was sound (which it's not). Apart from the sheer financial cost and utter recklessness of it, the UN members would never sanction it.

Add to that the fact that China (a fledgling superpower and economic powerhouse) probably has most to lose in a war with North Korea and you can see the likelihood that they would have strong reservations about offering their support. The two countries' capitals are only about 500 miles apart, and their borders are easily within the range of the other's ICBMs, air forces, or an invading ground force's supply lines.

It would be a hugely damaging conflict for China. They would stunt their own economic growth, sustain heavy damage, and pay the largest price, all to take part in what was basically America's war.

On top of all of this, North Korea have an as yet unclear Nuclear capability, which ups the game hugely, and their entire population of 25million or so people have been bred from birth in a military dictatorship to hate and distrust America-It's a recepie for disaster on a worldwide scale. It could amount to the first time two warring nations had ever used nuclear weapons on each other in active warfare. What head of state would wish that as their legacy?

Invading North Korea would be crazy. Politically, as long as neither side makes any big moves then the best option for both sides is just to keep up the posturing and idle threats, tighten up security, and keep a close eye on each other, but basically carry on as before, and NOT blow each other to kingdom come.

Overheal

Said on here a few times, but the DPRK might have cold war era weapons and armaments but these things are still just as lethal. You can have all the high tech weaponry you want it doesn't mean the north korean army isn't quite large, and on very rough home soil. Take a fly by on Google Earth sometime. Or, here's a topomap: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/North_Korea_1996_CIA_map.jpg

Unless the goal is to raze the country to ash you can't win any war from the air, and any ground assault would have casualty figures I'd rather not guess at. So at that you're not really accomplishing the point of saving lives. Then theres the inevitable guerrilla warfare, which again, doesn't discriminate very highly against who has the most technologically advanced gun. I could go on for several paragraphs how knights in full plate armor were rendered useless by long pointy sticks and peasants with daggers.

That's not even considering the political ramifications of how Koreas neighbors will take to the idea, or how much collateral damage would happen to the South.

And yes, if you want to tickle that thought: I wouldn't want to go in there myself particularly, unless the mountains were gold plated on the outside and full of rare metals on the inside, and they were sitting on 300 years of crude. You're absolutely correct that there are no good reasons to invade DPRK: Not politically, not economically, and not humanitarian. As NTM says, they are contained, they aren't trying to invade their neighbors. Nooo good reason exists to go an piss them off.

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

It's amazing how China just stand by while North Korea lets it's civilians starve to death.

No, it's really not. Take a closer look at China. They don't exactly do right by their citizens, either.

nacho libre wrote: »

to paraphrase Dick Cheney in an interview:
You don't enter wars where the military cost is going to be politically unsustainable. For all his lies, he was telling the truth on that occasion.

A pretty blunt but true statement. If the country doesn't support the war politically it has no chance of success.

and someone mentioned Israel? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

1 Hindu country: Has nukes
1 Judaic Country: Has nukes
Christian Countries: Lots of nukes

etc.

If Israel ever thinks of lobbing nukes at it's neighbors it'll be the dumbest thing they've done in a couple thousand years.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

You're absolutely correct that there are no good reasons to invade DPRK: Not politically, not economically, and not humanitarian. As NTM says, they are contained, they aren't trying to invade their neighbors. Nooo good reason exists to go an piss them off.

Lol @ Humanitarian reasons for going to war on a country. Since when has that p1ss poor excuse for unilateral action ever been believable? If there's a genuine, heartfelt desire in western politics to do right by people from a humanitarian perspective, then why is it that oppressed people in countries which have vast resources up for grabs seem to be the only ones that anybody in power in the west ever seems to defend?

Where were they in the 100 days when rape, torture, and murder were widespread in Rwanda, when Clinton's administration was carefully avoiding the use of the word "genocide" because it would have compelled them to act? Whose rights are they defending in Zimbabwe, where a power crazed dictator's intelligence agency death squads have been carrying out widespread ethnic cleansing for decades?

War is about money and power. It always has been, and it always will be, plain and simple. There's no room in it for being nice, or humanitarian, or benevolent. Such things are used for moral justifications of war when needed, but they are a means to an end, and anybody who believes otherwise is is just being naive.

Anyway, i digress. You're quite right, there are no good reasons at all to go to war with North Korea, and a perfect storm of reasons not to. International politics, American Domestic Politics, international trade, world power balances, economic markets stability, bolstering existing anti-western terrorist sentiment, selfish self-preservationist instincts within the G8, and yes, lest we not forget it, the real prospect of a war against an as yet unknown quantity who just may be nuts enough to push the big red button if they're backed into a corner.

Unless North Korea give the world powers a real, credible, reason to believe that they are a genuine and present threat (IE, do something stupid like run a nuclear missile test on the China border on the 4th of July) they will be more or less left to their own devices, and i suspect that both sides are well aware of that. Why would they antagonize the west to such a point as to give them a justification to go in and wipe out a long-time enemy for once and for all without risking a major PR loss? They won't. The war of words and uneasy peace will go on, because ultimately it's in both sides interest for it to.

RiseToTheTop

But it's almost certain they have nukes.