PerryDigital wrote:Why don't we ever use our spies? Sneak in, kill leader and friends, sneak out. Maybe defuse their bombs whilst you're there for a bit of extra time.
Over 20 000 South Koreans were sent in in that role from the 60s through to the 80s. Yeah, that period is thankfully over.
Gears wrote:I fail to see where I advocated genocide.
You flippantly suggested the U.S. engage in a military solution to the impasse. In 1994, it was estimated, by the U.S. military commander in South Korea, Gary Luck, that such an effort would cost one million lives, including those of 80 000 - 100 000 Americans.1
Those estimates are outdated, and probably conservative. The last war, for example, resulted in 2.5 million civilian casualties alone, with thirty six thousand U.S. dead. And the estimate does not take into account North Korea's subsequent weapons programme. You would be looking at millions of deaths, and you would be looking at most of those being North Korean if you planned to win. That is advocating genocide.
All I have to say is North Korea scares the hell out of me...
Oh, don't be so modest. I'm sure you have hundreds more uninformed opinions on the matter.
Znath wrote:Well the problem with that scenario is that North Korea is "literally" threatening all-out-war after the fact they've made acts of aggression.
So the hypothetical scenario is pretty much irrelevant.... in response to that
As opposed to the U.S.? Bush labelled North Korea as one of three countries in his "Axis of Evil", proceeded to invade one, and "refused to rule-out" the option of invading another. At the same time, he set the bar for talks with North Korea "impossibly high", resenting the 1994 Agreements under Clinton, but making it impossible to draft new ones.2
America has 100 000 troops stationed on the DMZ, and has always stockpiled nuclear weapons in South Korea. None of this is aggression? None of this is threatening to the North Korean state? You see no reason why North Korea would be antsy about this situation?
Znath wrote:North Korea is an oppressive / nuclear armed regime that is starving its people to build a tremendous army
Yes, instead of dispensing their rice to the population, they're using the foodstuffs to make artillery shells. The famines in the 90s were tragic, but they were the result of an unexpected crop failure, and a lack of aid from Russia on account of the collapse of the Soviet Union (who had previously taken care of North Korea during such crises). It was also a time of political instability--Kim wasn't expected to remain in power for more than a week in 1994. Since then, North Korea has concentrated efforts into reforming the economic system to, in large part, increase the food supply and make its distribution more efficient.3
It is not starving its people so that it can build an army, and it is disingenuous to suggest there would be no poverty if they spent less on their military.
The army they've always had, but they've also always been at war with South Korea and, as gears puts it, "the most powerful military in the world", for the past sixty years. If they did not have a large standing army, they would have been invaded by now.
Znath wrote:The US won't invade alone before any act of aggression due to the fact that Seoul Korea is merely miles from the boarder.
Any act by the US or anyone really would basically result in the immediate destruction of millions of lives by N.Korea
S.Korea won't invade because they simply don't have the capability and any pre-emptive attack would then result in
again... immediate destruction of millions of South Koreans.
Again, you're just repeating the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. No one is debating this.
Because the U.S. never spent two billion dollars digging a hole in the ground.
A good example of the tremendous waste by the North Korean government is their army, nuclear program and also
The thing is completely ridiculous and such a waste of money it hasn't been completed in decades.
The hotel's completion would have been great for bringing North Korea to the world and the world to North Korea - the fact it was not completed is a shame. Not because of the wasted funds ("inefficiency" is a bureaucracy's middle name), but because of the opportunities it would have provided for normalizing relations. Regarding the military expenditure, North Korea spends less than the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea, apparently
. But they're the ones being excessive in their spending?
Znath wrote:If a good solution can be reached to prevent N.Korea from going further via sanctions or something internationally.
It could stabilize the situation. This is particularly true if China and Russia get involved.
I believe that's why the US Secretary of State is over in that area with a small army of dignitaries.
China and Russia already are
involved: they have been involved from day one. Whenever you hear of six-party talks, that's the Koreas, Japan, the U.S., China, and Russia. Sanctions are problematic: if you try to starve out North Korea then the people will flee into China and South Korea, which those countries don't want, so they will never agree towards long term sanctions against North Korea. What is needed is a stable tack. South Korea was very receptive towards building positive relations with North Korea from the late 90s to the late 00s, at the same time the U.S. was opposed to any peace talks: this was despite a host of attempts by Kim in 2004 to build diplomatic bridges and admit to previous wrong-doings. Since then, South Korea has become more hostile to peace talks, while the U.S. is only moving very tentatively towards any agreements. The problem is that while North Korea's enemies only have one party to please, North Korea has to please a whole bunch of democratic governments who rotate their administrations every decade-or-so.
Sockmonkey wrote:Them having a nuke only really becomes a problem once they can stick it in a missle. Which unfortunately the will eventually be able to do. It comes down to a question of if we think with any certainty that they will do something so bad in the future that losing all those people in SK is the lesser tragedy.
Weren't we already sanctioning them?
You're seriously proposing a military solution on some fucking intuition you have that, once they have a warhead-sized nuclear weapon they'll, what, attack LA? Why would they do that? It's not consistent with any of their goals, and
especially not their two main goals: reunification and regime survival. 1James T. Laney & Jason T. Shaplen, "How to Deal with North Korea," Foreign Affairs, 82:2 (Apr - Mar; 2003): 23
3Christopher D. Hale, "Real Reform in North Korea? The Aftermath of the July 2002 Economic Measures", Asian Survey, 45:6 (Nov - Dec; 2005):823.