North Korea

[tedward]

If North Korea tested a nuclear weapon would you back a U.S attack on North Korea?

[JBond]

Not really..

[sphericthor]

That was sorted out fast

[Iben]

how about no

[Mat]

I'd support it because the last thing we need is an unstable leader with toys that big. That cracker should spend more money on his people than his toys.

[Scarlet spidey]

Only if they can attack us for testing ours:)

[evenstar]

No, look whats happend recently.

[IdahoMR2man]

I will if the UN backs it.

[Tim37ninjageniu]

Originally posted by Mat
I'd support it because the last thing we need is an unstable leader with toys that big. That cracker should spend more money on his people than his toys.

Are you talking about Bush or Kim Chong-il?

[Onimar Synn]

I was about to ask the same thing. ;) On the other hand, N. Korea having nuclear capabilities is a serious threat to the U.S. No one in their right mind would be in favor of a United States led nuclear attack on NK, but we would almost have to do something.

[Tim37ninjageniu]

We just spent $100 billion in Iraq. Bush is giving a taxcut. Where will he get the money for that? The U.N. needs to get off their lazy asses and do something. The U.N doesn't seem to care about Liberia or N. Korea.

[thebtskink]

The U.N.'s made a commitment to protecting the buffer zone between N. Korea and S. Korea. Having an adopted sister from S. Korea, the issue is all the more personal.

Stability is badly needed over there. N. Korea can have nuclear weapons in about 5 yrs. (1-2 if you trust their estimate, which scientists agree is only possible by pushing output to a DANGEROUSLY high level)

Scenarios:

The dangerous output backfires, N. Korea has another Chernobyl.
N. Korea profliferates. There is little doubt that they will use the weapons to attempt a reunification. U.N. sanctions are most likely to follow, with maybe a U.N. peacekeeping force (which we learned from Rwanda are utterly useless), or a NATO force (which we learned from Kosovo will probably cause civilian casualties)

The world we live in. :rolleyes:

[Steve from Indy]

Now this is all predicated on the fact that action becomes unavoidable.

No, I'm more in favor of blockading North Korea and causing his people to starve to death. Now if the citizens of that country decide to overthrow him, then I'm all in favor of helping them. But so far they seem more than happy to let him take them down this dark path. So I say let them starve. I wouldn't want to see one American life lost because of North Korea until absolutely necessary. But if it does become absolutely necessary, then I say annihilate them. These second rate countries need to learn the lesson of what happens when you poke a bear with a stick. Leave the bear alone, and he'll leave you alone. Otherwise you get what you deserve if you make him feel threatened.

It's easy to sit back and lob insults at America and Bush when you live in another country or when you don't understand the gravity of the situation. North Korea sells or gives nuclear weapon or materials to terrorist state. Terrorist state incinerates or kills thru a dirty bomb anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of people in a major US city. Most likely New York. US economy tanks--world economy tanks. Tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions face starvation and anarchy worldwide. The US responds by utterly destroying North Korea and the terrorist state. And you can probably figure out the rest from there.

But up until the time that action becomes necessary, then I say don't do a thing. Threats and insults won't hurt us. We're big enough to take them because we know until he can follow through on them, he's just trying to scare us. We're the United States of America. We don't scare easily. But President Bush needs to ignore Jong's attempt at blackmail. And try to bring him around with diplomacy.

Look, in general we're never going to be a loved country by the rest of the world. It's easier to blame someone else then to look yourself in the mirror and ask why did I fail. World leaders love to be contrary with us because just like in the animal kingdom, you make yourself look bigger and badder by taking on the big dog. So if we need to make someone look important in the eyes of his fellow countrymen to accomplish peace, then we're big enough to do that. At this point North Korea isn't really a threat to us, we haven't gotten to that point yet. So let Jong have a moral victory, just so long that in the future, he heels when we jerk his chain.

[Mat]

Steve from Indy summed up what I was thinking. Well done.

:applaud:

[Snake Spirit]

Originally posted by thebtskink
The U.N.'s made a commitment to protecting the buffer zone between N. Korea and S. Korea. Having an adopted sister from S. Korea, the issue is all the more personal.

Stability is badly needed over there. N. Korea can have nuclear weapons in about 5 yrs. (1-2 if you trust their estimate, which scientists agree is only possible by pushing output to a DANGEROUSLY high level)

Scenarios:

The dangerous output backfires, N. Korea has another Chernobyl.
N. Korea profliferates. There is little doubt that they will use the weapons to attempt a reunification. U.N. sanctions are most likely to follow, with maybe a U.N. peacekeeping force (which we learned from Rwanda are utterly useless), or a NATO force (which we learned from Kosovo will probably cause civilian casualties)

The world we live in. :rolleyes:

I know I said I was taking a break for a while, but reading this reply, I had to agree with you on it.

N. Korea itself is not only dangerous because of their nukes, but because of their neighbor China. China has almost 3 billion people, with an army of almost 7 million troops, and in the first Korean war, they damn near overran the UN with massive human wave attacks.

China butt in the first Korean war, and whose to say they wouldn't do it again? After all, a comrade is a comrade, right?

Whose to say that China wouldn't, if a good deal was made, merge with N. Korea and attempt to overtake S. Korea? Current US, UN and occupational forces couldn't possibly handle a massive sweep such as that.

So one possibility is combined Chinese and N.Korean troops driving all western forces from S. Korea, and then demanding a total withdrawal of western forces from all of Asia lest they suffer the wrath of a possible nuclear strike. Korea is reunified as a Communist nation, with Chinese peacekeppers to hold it down until the new Korea becomes self sufficient.

A unified Commie Korea would provide a very nice buffer zone that would stand between the west and China much the same way as East Germany and Poland provided during the Cold War. China would be on top, unified Korea would be their *****, and China will then eventually set out to do bigger and better things aimed at the total eradication of the west and her allies.

The official beginning of WW3.

China meanwhile, could easily decide to do a massive 3 or 4 front war in all of Asia and Eastern Europe, and could easily overtake the Soviet oil fields of Kazakhstan to fuel their economy. Russia has nothing to hold off the Chinese, and it would be an easy win.

[Steve from Indy]

Thanks Mat.

thebtskink and Snake Spirit both make good points. However, I doubt that China would make such bold move. Short of them having a madman like Hitler for a leader, I doubt that they would think the risk is worth the benefits. They would risk uniting Russia, America, most of Europe and most of Asia against them. Human waves are one thing, but several thousand bombers taking out your largest cities and infrastructure are another. Logistically speaking, providing for such a large army (especially on several fronts) would be a difficult thing against a superior naval and air force. Their supply lines would be constantly interrupted, and their economy would be in a shambles. And China has a less than up to date military. But that may change in the decades to come.

Actually, I think economic blackmail and the selling of nuclear materials to terrorist states is the biggest threat from China. Although their economy is no were near as large or as strong as the US economy, they are getting stronger and are beginning to embrace more of a free market economy. We need to encourage participation from them in the world market. This would hopefully give them less incentive to make money by selling arms and technology. However, in the future they may be able to have more influence on the world economy. And I think that if they (and that's a big if) became the world's superpower economically (or as large as the US), then we would be less likely to intervene on say Taiwan's or South Korea's behalf for fear of losing trade with such a large market.

But, I get your overall point and premise. We need to be vigilant against such scenarios that we've all discussed. And having said all this, who knows, China or North Korea may see that we're stretched thin and that the UN is less than united, and may decide that now is the time for a bold move. Although I think you may be a little off on China's population, as an aside. I think instituting the draft again might be a wise thing. Of course, it would have to be weighed against the need for a stronger military and the cost of such a large military. But a weak economy is better than no economy if such scenarios did take place. Although I wouldn't be in favor of a large military just to sit around in barracks half way across the world. Keep them at home until needed. And until we decide just what is our responsibility when it comes to world peace, and how to secure our borders and protect our cities from terrorism.

Geez, what a depressing subject!:( :waa:
;)

[Kris Hodgson]

Canada will dominate. What with our armada of canoes and our arsenal of stale Tim Hortens doughnuts.....WE CAN'T LOSE. Bow before your canadian masters!

[Balrog of Moria]

*moves to Canada*

Its like a safe-zone

[thebtskink]

Originally posted by Kris Hodgson
Canada will dominate. What with our armada of canoes and our arsenal of stale Tim Hortens doughnuts.....WE CAN'T LOSE. Bow before your canadian masters!

*ahem* Tim Horton's is owned by Wendy's. */ahem*

[Steve from Indy]

Any country that produced Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr, William Shatner and John Candy is ok with me. Too bad they also have the Canadiens. Well nobody's perfect.
;)

[thebtskink]

Originally posted by Steve from Indy
Any country that produced Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr, William Shatner and John Candy is ok with me. Too bad they also have the Canadiens. Well nobody's perfect.
;)

Yeah, but they also have Bryan Adams and Celine Dion. ;)

[Steve from Indy]

Yeah...you've got a point there.