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

124»

Comments

  • #92
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Absolutely true, not a whimper of protest. India is one of the 4 nations not signed up to the non Proliferation Treaty. Then again its not Iran, and some way from the middle east. I would be concerned that India has a nuclear programme and has the potential for huge instability.

    Hmmm, so about 15 years ago Indian and Pakistan went nuclear and you "would be concerned".


  • #93
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Hmmm, so about 15 years ago Indian and Pakistan went nuclear and you "would be concerned".

    No need for the sarcasm mister. If you take my post in context, when I stated that India was not part of the NPT( effectively no monitoring or rules).....then the bit about having a nuclear programme. The 2 together is concerning, would you not agree?


  • #94
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    No need for the sarcasm mister. If you take my post in context, when I stated that India was not part of the NPT( effectively no monitoring or rules).....then the bit about having a nuclear programme. The 2 together is concerning, would you not agree?

    India and Pakistan are both not signatories, so it's equally concerning, esp. since one of those countries has shown signs of instability, as well as the potential for a military coup.

    If India were to become as unstable as North Korea then I have no doubt the world would be extremely concerned - but for now there is little that can be done. Again, it's not "fair" that some countries have nuclear weapons and others don't. It's not "fair" that some nuclear armed countries raise more concern than others. It's just logic and cold reality.


  • #95
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You can discern what you want from history. North Korea as it stands is a hellhole of a country, in which the leadership is the aggressor - towards its own people and towards its neighbours.

    While this is true, they are no where near as bad as the US who:

    1) Have nuclear weapons
    2) Have previously used them
    3) Have previously said they want to use them against NK
    4) Have a record of starting wars and interfering in other countries internal politics

    Looking at the evidence the US is a far more aggressive country than NK. Hence why I can understand why NK want nuclear weapons.

    As stated previously, I don't want any country to have nuclear weapons.

    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Were you brainwashed when you were over there or something?

    Grow up.


  • #96
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Unrelated but interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_39


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    While this is true, they are no where near as bad as the US who:

    1) Have nuclear weapons

    Well, they did invent them. Got to have some perks for it.
    2) Have previously used them

    Not as if they started that war, but it was a pretty handy tool.
    3) Have previously said they want to use them against NK

    "Want", or "would?" I strongly doubt any official policy (or even unofficial statement by an official) has "want" in it with regards to anyone, be it DPRK or not.
    4) Have a record of starting wars and interfering in other countries internal politics

    DPRK has a history of fairly blatant and aggressive relations with its neighbour to the South. Even the US and USSR didn't send military hit squads to off the opposing Presidents, for example.

    It also has something of a history of being a state sponsor of terrorism. See, for example, KAL 858 or the Rangoon bombing. At least when the US tries something, it tends to use the front door.

    NTM


  • #98
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    I agree NK has a very bad history. Though you could argue SK has a history of fairly blatant and aggressive relations with its neighbour too.

    Manic Moran wrote:
    "Want", or "would?" I strongly doubt any official policy (or even unofficial statement by an official) has "want" in it with regards to anyone, be it DPRK or not.

    Let's not argue semantics but the facts are the US strongly considered dropping the bomb on NK:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#U.S._threat_of_atomic_warfare

    I've read elsewhere that the only reason they didn't drop the bomb was because the UK said they would pull out of the war if it happened.


  • #99
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    While this is true, they are no where near as bad as the US who:

    1) Have nuclear weapons
    2) Have previously used them
    3) Have previously said they want to use them against NK
    4) Have a record of starting wars and interfering in other countries internal politics

    Looking at the evidence the US is a far more aggressive country than NK. Hence why I can understand why NK want nuclear weapons.

    You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons. The size of the current standing army and ratio of civilians to enlisted men should give you a clue.

    They leadership and top brass of the country want nuclear weapons to furtherpreserve power. They will try to retain this power at all and any cost to the people of North Korea.

    Doing a very simplistic historical evaluation on "who is worse" is logically very flawed. Nothing to do with the actual reality of the situation.

    Apply your logic to Germany or Japan or Italy.. how far back to do you want to go?

    Again, NK is an unstable tightly controlled dictatorship roundly condemned by almost every nation.


  • #100
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons.

    You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons.

    But it's OK, I'm not going to argue with a stranger on the Internet. The last time I did that I later discovered the other person was 14.

    I suggest you go back and read WakeUp's posts.


  • #101
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons. The size of the current standing army and ratio of civilians to enlisted men should give you a clue.

    The same question could be asked of any, or all, of those nations that possess nuclear weapons. Why do they need them? The weapons are for total destruction and nothing else, there is no upside. If they are purely for protection against attack, then NK is no different from any of the other hypocrites that currently have them.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    KCAccidental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭KCAccidental


    Even the US and USSR didn't send military hit squads to off the opposing Presidents, for example.

    you sure about that?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_transnational_human_rights_actions#Assassinations


  • #103
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    You clearly don't understand why NK fundamentally want nuclear weapons.

    No need to get personal, its a debate on a public forum.

    The North Korean leadership were not "forced" by the international community or anyone else to weaponise. It's purely a mechanism designed to protect and ensure the survival of the regime, whilst allowing them to manipulate neighbouring countries.

    Apportioning blame away from the source responsible and onto select other countries by use of historical "score-cards" is something that sadly crops up here a little too much.


  • #104
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    The same question could be asked of any, or all, of those nations that possess nuclear weapons. Why do they need them? The weapons are for total destruction and nothing else, there is no upside. If they are purely for protection against attack, then NK is no different from any of the other hypocrites that currently have them.

    Yup Micro I do agree but for its still over-simplification. On paper it's not "fair" that a nuclear armed country X criticises country Y for trying to gain nuclear weapons.

    So hypothetically, in order to avoid this hypocrisy, and following this logic, every country should either all be nuclear armed or no one should have them.

    Noble? yes, possible? no.

    Therefore we deal with the reality we have. If countries are to acquire nuclear weapons, no one is particularly happy if one of those nations is a Stalinist dictatorship based on a personality cult that might decide to pass its tech or weapons onto even more unstable groups and entities.

    Hence the tangible world concern on the matter.


  • #105
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    No need to get personal, its a debate on a public forum.

    I was quoting what you said! You are the one getting personal and trying to force your opinion down people's throats.

    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The North Korean leadership were not "forced" by the international community or anyone else to weaponise. It's purely a mechanism designed to protect and ensure the survival of the regime, whilst allowing them to manipulate neighbouring countries.

    Apportioning blame away from the source responsible and onto select other countries by use of historical "score-cards" is something that sadly crops up here a little too much.

    You can't ignore history.


  • #106
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Thread is getting personal overall. Please post civilly and respectfully and we should have no problems.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #107
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Recent statement by the North.
    North Korea's military says it is planning to launch "special actions" meant to wipe out the administration of the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak.

    The army statement carried by state media on Monday said the actions would last three to four minutes and be carried out "by unprecedented peculiar means and methods of our own style". It gave no more details.

    North Korea regularly criticises Seoul and just last week renewed its promise to wage a "sacred war", saying President Lee had insulted the 15 April celebrations to mark the birth centenary of North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung.

    And a month earlier, more threats from Pyongyang
    "Deputy commander Li Gum-chol threatened: "We will turn Seoul into a sea of flames by our strong and cruel artillery firepower, which cannot be compared to our artillery shelling on Yeonpyeong Island. We are training hard, concentrating on revenge to shock [South Korea president] Lee Myung-bak's traitorous group and the military warmongers in South Korea."
    North Korean artillery shelled South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island in November 2010, killing four people including two civilians.
    On Sunday, tens of thousands of slogan-chanting North Koreans rallied in Pyongyang vowing to "wipe out" South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's "traitors" whom they accused of defaming their new leader, Kim Jong-un, and of staging inflammatory war games with the United States."

    DPRK threatened nuclear response over drills - which came after the North Korean navy sank the Cheonan.

    Not exactly the nicest neighbour to have playing with nuclear weapons and long range missiles.


  • #108
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Not exactly the nicest neighbour to have playing with nuclear weapons and long range missiles.

    I think everyone agrees they do not want NK to have nuclear weapons. (Although I can't imagine any sane person wants any country to have nuclear weapons.)

    One of NK's biggest mistakes IMO is their childlike threats, similar to what Iran do. They should take a leaf out of the US's or Israel's book and use good looking people playing the victim to defend their actions.


  • #109
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    One of NK's biggest mistakes IMO is their childlike threats, similar to what Iran do

    I don't think they're on the same level. Barrind the occasional comment about closing the Straits, the level of hyperbole coming out of Iran is nowhere near the level that the DPRK is putting out, both publicly and to its own people. The Iranians are generally speaking being far more intelligent about it.

    NTM


  • #110
    Cork boy 55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I don't think they're on the same level. Barrind the occasional comment about closing the Straits, the level of hyperbole coming out of Iran is nowhere near the level that the DPRK is putting out, both publicly and to its own people. The Iranians are generally speaking being far more intelligent about it.

    NTM

    Some very strange unusual aggressive statements coming out of NK today
    North Korea has warned of "unprecedented" action against South Korea's ruling establishment, amid tough rhetoric between the two sides.
    A special operation to begin "soon" would "reduce its target to ashes", the military said in a statement.
    On Friday North Korea also held a rally calling for the death of South Korea's president, condemning his comments against the North
    Seoul said last week it had deployed more missiles against the North.
    A defence ministry spokesman said the missiles had a range of 1,000km (625 miles) and could hit any of Pyongyang's nuclear or missile sites.
    The North's statement directly criticised South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, the defence minister, analysts and "rat-like elements" including conservative broadcasters, who were accused of "destroying fair-minded public opinion." The statement, which was read out on state television, said that "the special actions of our revolutionary armed forces will start soon to meet the reckless challenge of the group of traitors".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17810198

    I wonder how its all going to end.


  • #111
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Cork boy 55 wrote: »
    I wonder how its all going to end.

    I suspect nothing will happen.

    It is not in the US' interests to have a war with NK as the current situation suits them perfectly - a load of military bases in SK and Japan - who knows how this could change after a war.

    After being in NK recently and talking to a lot of soldiers they really do not want to attack the south as they believe they are the same people. Their problem is with the US.

    One of the problems with the western media is we only hear our side of things. I'd like to know what shenanigans the south have been up to too.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    troposphere
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 174 ✭✭troposphere


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    One of the problems with the western media is we only hear our side of things.

    Ha, are you serious? Complaining about the Western media when talking about DPRK? If anything Western media is biased to what they see when they are on guided tours of DPRK.


  • #113
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    troposphere wrote: »
    Ha, are you serious? Complaining about the Western media when talking about DPRK? If anything Western media is biased to what they see when they are on guided tours of DPRK.

    Whoa... hang on, you think the western media provides a balanced and fair commentary on its "enemies"?

    SK hardly ever (never?) get painted as bad guys even though they constantly have army training etc. on disputed waters and allow an aggressive foreign military have huge bases on its land.

    It makes sense to try to read both sides of the story, otherwise you're only getting half the story.

    For the record I obviously have issues with the crap NK is saying.


  • #114
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    After being in NK recently and talking to a lot of soldiers they really do not want to attack the south as they believe they are the same people. Their problem is with the US.

    If they have issues with the US, then why did they sink a RoK ship, shell a RoK island, make all sorts of nasty noises about the RoK president, and in the past, conduct other operations inside RoK territory or against RoK assets?

    The view of being the 'same people' is shared by the South, the Korean War is referred to as the Great Fratricidal Conflict, but brothers can still have their differences. Cain killed Abel, and I'm sure the two nations viewed each other as the same peoples back in 1950 as well.

    NTM


  • #115
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    If they have issues with the US, then why did they sink a RoK ship, shell a RoK island, make all sorts of nasty noises about the RoK president, and in the past, conduct other operations inside RoK territory or against RoK assets?

    Well I'm not talking in black and white terms, I don't think that is useful.

    From talking to NK soldiers they believe the SK government (and military) are puppets for the US.


  • #116
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    Well I'm not talking in black and white terms, I don't think that is useful.

    From talking to NK soldiers they believe the SK government (and military) are puppets for the US.

    Of course, the people in the country are heavily brainwashed. They will never say anything negative about the Great Leader or Workers Party of Korea (this is why the camps exist). Did your guide freely let you chat to the soldiers? what language did they speak?

    I've had several friends go there (teachers in SK) and their guides would not allow them anywhere near the soldiers and of course not mention anything about America unless it was negative.

    Here's the standard warning to tourists -
    WARNING: Under no circumstances whatsoever are you to say something that could be perceived as an insult to Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-Il, Kim Jong-Un, the Juche ideology, the Songun policy, the ruling Worker's Party of Korea, or the entire North Korean government in general, and the citizens. Simply avoid these topics if you can. Keep in mind that anyone can be an undercover government agent or a minder. Respond accordingly when this subject is at hand, always keep in mind you might be tested and pushed into admitting your real feelings on these subjects, whatever they may be. You and your guide are likely to face serious trouble but your guide will bear the worst. "In trouble" does not mean a slap on the wrist. North Korea is known for extremely harsh punishments which range (for the guides) from lengthy prison sentences to a lifetime of severe mistreatment, hard labour, or even torture by intelligence officers, while you are likely to be sentenced to a stay in a local prison or labour camp, deported, and banned from re-entering. Assume that you will be under surveillance at all times during your trip including your hotel room.


  • #117
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    There is just as much brain washing in the West. For example, the majority of US citizens think their country's foreign policy is about "protecting freedom" and all that nonsense.

    Of course, the US is more "free" than NK, but that doesn't mean the brain washing doesn't exist.

    I don't want to comment on the specifics of my trip to NK.


  • #118
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    From talking to NK soldiers they believe the SK government (and military) are puppets for the US.

    Does that matter in practical terms? Regardless of the underlying motivations, the end result seems to be pretty much the same.

    NTM


  • #119
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Does that matter in practical terms? Regardless of the underlying motivations, the end result seems to be pretty much the same.

    NTM

    It's all talk though. If we compare NK's foreign policy with that of the US, NK are practically angels in comparison, but I don't hear anyone here suggesting the US should be invaded.

    Obviously NK is a messed up country but for the past 60 years it's mostly been all talk and no action.

    I don't know what the solution to NK is, but it is not a war. NK people need help, not more suffering.


  • #120
    dpe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 520 ✭✭✭dpe


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    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.

    Static defences that are more impressive on paper than reality. All it means most of the time is that Americans and South Koreans know exactly where all the guns are, which is half the battle.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    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.

    A triumph of PR over reality. Remember the "elite Republican Guard"? Same thing. If anything, NK is a hard shell with nothing inside it. Guerilla activity is unlikely because that actually implies trust in your troops at a unit and NCO level, something that's anathema to NK's leaders.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    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.

    Once again, mostly static, and what isn't doesn't have fuel. A paper tiger.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    4. Most importantly of all, North Korea is a Chinese client state, they just wouldn't stand for it.

    This is all that really matters. The US can't afford to piss off their largest trading partner and holder of most of their foreign currency. The Americans are also dubious about the reliability of the South Koreans; not directly militarily (they're pretty good actually), but politically and the response of the SK public.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    There is just as much brain washing in the West. For example, the majority of US citizens think their country's foreign policy is about "protecting freedom" and all that nonsense.

    Of course, the US is more "free" than NK, but that doesn't mean the brain washing doesn't exist.

    I don't want to comment on the specifics of my trip to NK.

    Don't forget Beijing...


Advertisement